    [Senate Hearing 106-33]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 106-33

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 4112/S. 2137

    AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
          YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES deg.

                                   __________

                 Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
                          Congressional Budget Office
                           General Accounting Office
                           Government Printing Office
                          Joint Committee on Taxation
                            Joint Economic Committee
                              Library of Congress
                           Nondepartmental witnesses
                              Office of Compliance
                           U.S. Capitol Police Board
                                  U.S. Senate

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     senate

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    54-224 CC                   WASHINGTON : 1999

    _______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
                                     20402
                               ISBN 0-16-058458-2

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    SLADE GORTON, Washington             FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JON KYL, Arizona
                       Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                     Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
                   James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch

                       ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
                                         ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
                                           (ex officio)
                               Professional Staff
                               Christine Ciccone
                          James H. English (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, March 3, 1999

                                                                       Page
    U.S. Capitol Police Board........................................     1
    Architect of the Capitol.........................................    21

                           Wednesday, March 10, 1999

    Joint Committee on Taxation......................................    87
    Joint Economic Committee.........................................   103
    Office of Compliance.............................................   105

                           Wednesday, March 17, 1999

    Library of Congress..............................................   117
    General Accounting Office........................................   165
    Government Printing Office.......................................   189
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   209

                           Wednesday, March 24, 1999

    U.S. Senate:
        Office of the Secretary of the Senate........................   217
        Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper................   271
    Congressional Budget Office......................................   293

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Bennett and Feinstein.

                           U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. JAMES W. ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. SENATE, CHAIRMAN,
                CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
            HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF
                REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBER, CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
            HON. ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, MEMBER, CAPITOL
                POLICE BOARD
            GARY L. ABRECHT, CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE

                  opening statement of hon. robert f. bennett

        Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order.
        We want to welcome our new ranking member, Senator
    Feinstein from California. She has come back onto the
    Appropriations Committee and we are delighted to have her
    assigned to this subcommittee and have her serving as the
    ranking member.
        We also have another new member of the subcommittee,
    Senator Durbin, and look forward to working with him as well.
        One of the nice things about Senator Feinstein, along with
    all the other nice things she automatically brings to any
    assignment, is the fact that she is a member of the Rules
    Committee. There is an overlap in the Rules Committee area of
    jurisdiction and our area of responsibility. So we will have a
    coordination here between the Rules Committee function and this
    subcommittee's function that will be very welcome and I think
    very useful.
        Now, I cannot let the opening opportunity pass without
    talking about my current obsession, which is Y2K. As we
    noticed, yesterday was Y2K Day in the Senate and we passed two
    pieces of legislation on the floor of the Senate with respect
    to Y2K. I think we are making fairly good progress in a variety
    of areas.
        I will not revisit all of that, except to share with you
    the comment of my chief of staff for the Y2K committee. When we
    first got into this issue in the Banking Committee, he was my
    Banking Committee staffer and he quoted his grandmother, who
    said: ``Always sweep in front of your own stoop first.'' We are
    out sweeping in front of everybody else's stoop and we have to
    ask the question, is the legislative branch of government going
    to be Y2K-compliant?
        Now, those of you who testified before this subcommittee
    before know that I always raise it. I am putting you on notice
    that I will raise it again this morning and that the
    subcommittee is prepared to have another hearing on this issue
    later this year if in fact the Y2K preparedness warrants it. I
    can think of nothing more personally embarrassing to me than to
    have other parts of the economy all work and the legislative
    branch fail to work and have people say, well, he was out
    sweeping in front of everybody else's stoop, but he did not
    bother to look at the dust and debris that had accumulated in
    front of his own.
        So I am putting you on notice. I know that comes as no
    surprise because that is an issue that I have been so outspoken
    on for the last 3 years, but I wanted to make that clear.
        It is worth noting that OMB has set the 31st of March as
    the deadline for every executive agency to have things done so
    that the testing can start. We already know that there are
    executive agencies that will not meet that deadline. We think
    that is a decent deadline. It gives you 9 months for testing,
    which in some instances will be plenty. In others, like the
    Defense Department, it will probably not be, because the
    testing is in many ways the most time-consuming part of the Y2K
    challenge.
        If the agencies we hear from this morning are not ready by
    the 31st of March, then we plan to have some kind of additional
    hearing in April to have you outline when you plan to be ready
    and exactly where you are with respect to remediation.
        Now, Senator Feinstein, we appreciate again your being
    here, your joining us, and happy to have whatever opening
    statement you may care to make.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    want to say that it is a great pleasure for me to work with
    you. I find you very open and willing to discuss and share, and
    I want you to know that, in the best bipartisan spirit, I
    really appreciate that very, very much.
        For me, some of the numbers that I see on the Legislative
    Branch have been a surprise, and as we begin the process of
    this detailed review of the fiscal year 2000 battlefield I note
    that the Legislative Branch Subcommittee's total is
    $2,621,321,000, which is an increase of $269,521,000, or an
    11.5 percent increase from fiscal year 1999 enacted levels. For
    the Senate items only, the amount requested for fiscal year
    2000 totals $517,460,000, which is an increase of over $42
    million, or approximately 9 percent over last year's enacted
    level.
        Those are for me, who has only done city and county budgets
    really, a substantial amount. I expect that, because the
    budgetary constraints on the domestic discretionary budget will
    be tight again this year, the 302(b) allocation to this
    particular subcommittee will also be tight.
        I note that members of the Capitol Police Board are
    scheduled to testify first. As you know, the fiscal year 1999
    Omnibus Appropriations Act provided emergency funding of
    $106,782,000 to the Capitol Police Board to enhance security
    for the Capitol complex and the Library of Congress buildings
    and grounds. I have been privileged to hear the Chief's
    presentation at the Rules Committee. This includes additional
    police staffing of 260 to be brought on over a 2-year period to
    assist in implementing these security upgrades, which
    incidentally I support.
        It is my hope, Chief, that you will take some time during
    your opening remarks to outline for this subcommittee the
    impact these additional staff will have on an annualized basis
    to your budget request beginning with fiscal year 2001.
        I would like to thank the chairman for scheduling these
    witnesses to appear before us today, and I thank you very much,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Our first panel is the U.S. Capitol Police Board, James
    Ziglar, and we welcome you, sir. This is your first experience
    before the subcommittee. I hope we will not continue to see the
    musical chairs phenomenon with respect to the Sergeant at Arms.
    Since I have been on this subcommittee, I have heard testimony
    from Howard Green, Greg Casey, and now you. We hope you are
    here for certainly as long as you want to be and for a good
    long time. We welcome you and welcome your expertise to this
    assignment.
        Along with Mr. Ziglar are some more familiar faces: Mr.
    Livingood, Mr. Hantman, and Chief Abrecht.

                                 budget request

        The budget request for the police is $90.2 million, $81.2
    million for salaries and $9 million for general expenses. This
    is an 8.6 percent increase over the fiscal 1999 level. It
    supports the current FTE level of 1,251 civilian and uniformed
    officers.
        Before we begin with the testimony, I want to formally and
    publicly thank the Police Board and the police staff for your
    openness and your willingness to share with us the specifics of
    many of the challenges you are facing. Too often we have people
    who when they have problems try to hide them and hope that in
    hiding them they can make them go away.
        But you have been very open and candid with this
    subcommittee and I appreciate our relationship. I think this
    relationship makes it easier for us to help you. We know that
    sometimes you would rather not share some of your problems, but
    your willingness to do so I think is admirable and much
    appreciated.
        We want to work together with the police to help you get
    the infrastructure that you need. We recognize that the police
    provide an absolutely vital and, as was dramatically
    demonstrated last summer, life-threatening service for all of
    us. We sometimes take that protection for granted. It was a
    tragic incident that reminded us just how professional our
    Capitol Police force really is. I would be remiss if I did not
    publicly, through you, Chief Abrecht, thank you for all of the
    work that all of the men and women on the police force do to
    take care of us.
        So we will, I assume, begin with you, Mr. Ziglar as the
    Chairman of the Board.
        Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein.
        With respect to the musical chairs comment you made, I hope
    that I do not contribute to that. But in keeping with your
    comment about Y2K, the Leader has explained to me that I will
    contribute to that if I do not get it fixed right. So if I am
    not here for next year's hearing, it is because we failed on
    Y2K and the Leader did not think kindly of it. But hopefully
    that will not occur.
        As you mentioned, this is my first occasion to be here and
    I am very pleased to be here. I am also very honored to be
    Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and I am looking forward to
    working with you.
        As you know, Senator, I worked here when your dad was a
    Senator, and so it is like coming home for me 35 years later.

                           introduction of associates

        I would like to introduce--well, you have already
    introduced them, Bill Livingood and Alan Hantman, the other two
    members of the Capitol Police Board, and make one comment, and
    that is in a very short period of time we have had an
    extraordinarily good working relationship. In addition to
    working together well, we have actually become friends and are
    enjoying each other.
        In fact, today is the first time that consolidated
    testimony among the Architect and the House and the Senate has
    been presented on a budget request, and we think that this
    demonstrates our unity.
        I would like to also introduce to you two other folks in
    the audience here, Doyle Frederick and Ozzie Girard. Doyle is
    the Chief of Staff of the Sergeant at Arms and Ozzie Girard is
    here working on security and police liaison issues for me. I
    did a little bit of reorganization in order to focus on those
    things.
        We have prepared a written statement which has been
    submitted for the record. In addition, I would like to just
    make a few comments.
        Senator Bennett. Your statement will appear in the record
    in full.

                               summary statement

        Mr. Ziglar. Thank you. I would like to just make a few
    comments, if I could, summarizing and somewhat expanding on it.
        Since I became Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and
    particularly since I became Capitol Police Board Chairman, I
    have developed a very strong respect for the Capitol Police
    Department, the Chief and all of those folks that run it. It is
    a very professional and very capable organization. I have to
    tell you, having arrived right at the beginning of the
    impeachment process, which does not happen that often, with all
    sorts of incredible security problems and challenges, the
    Capitol Police performed superbly.
        There were very, very few glitches. It was a seamless
    performance in terms of security. I want to especially thank
    the Chief and officers for their performance in that.
        I think we all should be very thankful for and proud of the
    service that we get from the Capitol Police Department. Now,
    that is not to say, however, that over the next few years that
    we do not have some challenges that we are going to have to
    meet in terms of the security around here.
        During the next few years we are going to do a number of
    things. As you pointed out, we are going to add roughly 260 new
    officers to the police force, which is a massive infusion of
    new personnel, and that will create some transition challenges.
        We are going to upgrade the personal equipment for officers
    and we are going to upgrade the training for our officers. We
    are going to be implementing the massive physical security
    upgrades that are part of the omnibus authorization from last
    year, and that is Capitol Complex-wide.
        We are going to be developing or are developing a master
    plan to address some of the deficiencies in the Capitol Police
    infrastructure. And we are going to implement many of the
    recommendations of the recently released Booz-Allen and
    Hamilton report, having to do primarily with the administration
    and strategic planning part of the Capitol Police.
        The Congress has been very supportive of the Capitol Police
    and of the security issues around the Capitol. Just in the last
    few weeks literally, we have had a number of very important
    developments that have occurred. In the House, both the
    Appropriations and the authorizing committees have now approved
    the $106 million implementation plan, and we are hoping very
    soon to get approval on the Senate side so that we can begin to
    move ahead.
        Second, the appropriate House and Senate committees have
    approved the hiring of our 260 new personnel. With respect to
    the House, there are about 15 positions that they want us to
    provide additional justification for. We are in the process of
    recruiting and also developing a training program.
        Obviously, to bring that many personnel on board we are
    going to have to double the size of the training program and
    bring a little more efficiency into it in order to get them up
    to the professional level that we have for the rest of our
    officers.
        Third, the perimeter security program has now been approved
    by all parties and the Architect of the Capitol is doing a
    terrific job of getting it moving. I suspect Alan will talk
    more about that, either now or in his testimony later on today.
        So these three very critical elements of our security plan
    are now in place or just about in place and operating. We are
    very proud of the way the police have handled this and how
    quickly it has gone, and particularly for the support from the
    Congress on both sides.
        Another significant recent event was the release of the
    Booz-Allen and Hamilton study on the Police Department which
    particularly focused on administrative activities. They have
    recommended some changes in both the human resources,
    information technology, and financial management areas. One of
    the overarching recommendations was that the Police Department
    needs to have a strategic plan in this area. We had--actually,
    before that recommendation was final started the process of
    working with the Police Department on creating a strategic
    plan, and also moving quickly to take some action on a
    reorganization that is obvious, I think, to everyone that we
    need to do.
        In fact, when we leave here today we are going to a 2-day
    offsite Board workshop. We are not going to any luxurious
    place. We are just going outside the Capitol complex so that
    our telephones do not ring all the time. We will look at the
    Booz-Allen report in depth and come up with our
    recommendations; the master planning document on the facilities
    side; as well as some other implementation issues with regard
    to the omnibus authorization.
        Let us talk about Y2K.
        Senator Bennett. OK.

                                      y2k

        Mr. Ziglar. I was keeping you in suspense by putting it
    further down, not that it is not the number one priority.
        In my role as Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, I obviously
    have more than just the police part of the Y2K. I have been,
    particularly since the impeachment trial was over and I had a
    little bit more time, very involved in it. I was very involved
    in it when I first got here.
        I am feeling very comfortable, Senator, that we are doing
    the right things. I have reached beyond just our in-house
    people to have some outside folks take a look at it on an
    informal basis, just to make sure that there was nothing that
    seemed to be OK but was not. I am feeling good that we are--
    although we may not have all things done by March 31 we are
    doing very well, and I suspect that you and I and Senator
    Feinstein will be talking about those issues in another budget
    hearing on March the 24th.
        But with respect to the Police Department, we identified 19
    critical missions systems. I have gone through each one of them
    with the police. We are now at the implementation stage, beyond
    validation, on at least ten of them, as I recall. I do not have
    that right in front of me. We are at validation on 14 of the
    19, and we are doing quite well on the renovation of the rest
    of them.
        There is only one system that at this point I think we are
    not exactly sure what we are going to do with, and that is the
    Motorola radio console system. The issue there, quite frankly,
    having looked at this thing in some detail, is not so much Y2K
    compliance, because we can get there. The issue is whether or
    not we are going to spend between $600,000 and $900,000 to
    replace that console system or we are going to do a patch.
        Now, without regard to Y2K the fact is that that system is
    very old, it is outdated, it is at the low end of the
    technological curve, and, more importantly, it has no
    redundancy in the system. From a police security point of view,
    it is not a very attractive situation. So to be quite honest
    with you, we are tending now, as a result of an additional
    technical meeting yesterday, toward replacement of the console
    system through an RFP process. Because there is a lot of good
    technology out there, we are not limited to the original
    supplier.

                              prepared statements

        I think that is probably what we will recommend and we are
    very close to making that decision. It really has to do with
    upgrading our technology as much as with Y2K.
        [The statements follow:]
                     Prepared Statement of James W. Ziglar
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
    before you to present the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the
    United States Capitol Police.
        Although I have been a member of the U.S. Capitol Police Board for
    a relatively short period of time, and Chairman for only two months, I
    have developed a strong respect for the capabilities and
    professionalism of the men and women of the United States Capitol
    Police. In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to Bill
    Livingood and Alan Hantman for their outstanding contributions as
    members of the Board and for their wise counsel during this learning
    period I am traversing. We have developed an excellent working
    relationship in a short period of time and this spirit of cooperation
    and unity is evident today in our testimony before this Subcommittee.
    For the first time, the members of the U.S. Capitol Police Board have
    submitted a single joint statement regarding the U.S. Capitol Police
    budget request.
        Mr. Chairman, the next few years will be a challenging time for the
    United States Capitol Police. The Department plans to add 260 police
    personnel to its ranks over a two year period; we will provide officers
    with upgraded personal equipment and training; we will make significant
    changes to the Department's administrative and operational
    capabilities; we will upgrade physical security equipment; and, under
    the direction of the Architect, we will make much needed improvements
    to the physical security barriers which protect the Capitol Complex.
    The challenge for the members of the Capitol Police Board will be to
    manage this change and to continue to meet the unique security needs of
    Congress during the transition.
        In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 105-277, the U.S.
    Capitol Police Board recently submitted to the authorizing and
    appropriations committees an integrated implementation plan detailing
    the needed police equipment upgrades and outlining the first phase of
    the security enhancements to the Capitol Complex and Library of
    Congress buildings and grounds. The segment of the implementation plan
    which addresses the personnel increase has been approved by all
    committees and we have initiated an aggressive recruitment agenda to
    fill the approved positions. Just last week, the House oversight and
    appropriation committees approved the remaining parts of the Security
    Enhancement Implementation Plan. We would very much appreciate your
    early consideration and approval of the remaining parts of the plan
    which will allow us to move ahead with the upgrade of police equipment
    and physical security technology. In an unprecedented fashion, the
    USCP, Architect of the Capitol, Library of Congress Police, and even
    the U.S. Supreme Court Police are working closely to coordinate the
    efficient execution of the Plan upon final approval.
        With regard to physical security upgrades, we have just received
    final approval for the Capitol Square Perimeter Security Plan. As you
    know, this plan addresses the need to upgrade the physical barriers
    that will surround the Capitol Square and the Senate office buildings.
    The new barriers will provide a higher level of security and will also
    be more aesthetically pleasing than the current structures. These
    initiatives, implemented under the guidance of the Architect, will
    provide long-term security for the Capitol Complex and meet current
    industry standards to protect against vehicular terrorist attacks. For
    your information, the security perimeter upgrades along Delaware Avenue
    and C Street on the Senate side are currently under design and we will
    be requesting approval to release funds to proceed with construction
    shortly.
        Last year, the Chairmen of the Legislative Branch appropriations
    and oversight committees tasked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to
    contract and oversee an evaluation of selected administrative
    operations of the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) to identify opportunities
    to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness. The GAO selected Booz-
    Allen & Hamilton to perform the evaluation and to conduct a management
    review of selected USCP administrative operations. Specifically, the
    review addressed the management of the financial services, human
    resources, and information technology operations. The members of the
    Board have been briefed by the staff of the General Accounting office
    and last week we were provided with the final report of Booz-Allen &
    Hamilton. Areas highlighted for emphasis during the briefing process
    included the need to establish an administrative structure to support
    the core mission; the need to develop a strategic plan; and the need to
    establish policies and procedures for all support activities. The Board
    is in general agreement with the findings and recommendations of the
    report.
        The Board and the USCP have begun addressing the issues raised in
    the report. Actions to be taken include preparing a draft
    reorganization plan; acquiring the resources for preparing the
    Department's strategic plan; and rectifying staffing deficiencies in
    the areas of financial management, information technology management,
    and human resources management. Many of the staffing issues were
    addressed in the staffing proposal which has now been approved by this
    Committee. In addition, the creation of an improved policy review and
    personnel evaluation process is under way.
        Once the Board has had the opportunity to fully review and discuss
    the information contained in the final report, we will make additional
    decisions on how to institute measures to improve the Department's
    administrative infrastructure to reflect best business practices. As a
    matter of fact, immediately following this hearing, the Board has
    scheduled a two and a half day workshop to discuss USCP activities and
    operations, with the Booz-Allen report being one of the agenda items
    for discussion. We will keep the Committees advised as we make progress
    toward implementing the recommendations contained in the report.
        Another important issue is the status of the U.S. Capitol Police
    Year 2000 computer compliance project. The police have identified
    nineteen mission critical systems which must become Y2K compliant. Thus
    far, we have renovated fourteen systems and have validated ten. The
    validation of two other systems is 98 percent complete. Currently, the
    U.S. Capitol Police have ten of their nineteen systems Y2K compliant
    and in operation. Of the remaining nine systems, two are 98 percent
    complete and one is 50 percent complete. The remaining six are being
    renovated in conjunction with the Office of the Senate Sergeant at
    Arms, the Metropolitan Police, or are otherwise the sole responsibility
    of the USCP. We project that we will have achieved full Year 2000
    computer compliance for all U.S. Capitol Police systems by September,
    1999.
        The increase reflected in the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2000
    budget request is primarily a result of funds needed to sustain the
    revised longevity rates and differentials for Sunday, holiday, and
    evening shifts that were approved by the authorizing and appropriations
    committees for fiscal year 1999. It also includes the cost of the
    anticipated COLA and comparability pay increases, as well as personnel
    benefits.
        Also, it should be noted that the USCP fiscal year 2000 budget
    request includes an increase in funding to cover the Department's
    computer and telecommunications expenses. Additional funds are
    necessary to cover the needed improvements in the information
    technology area based on our own analysis and as recommended in the
    Booz-Allen report. We are proposing to include this funding in the USCP
    budget rather than continue to use resources from the budget of the
    Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The Senate has provided the U.S.
    Capitol Police with extensive equipment and technical support over the
    past several years. The Board feels that the Chief and the Command
    staff, under the supervision of the Board, should have direct control
    over and accountability for the funds required to purchase and operate
    these systems. Therefore, we have proposed that these items be included
    in the U.S. Capitol Police Budget.
        The Capitol Police Board has approved security related projects
    that are included in the Architect of the Capitol's budget request for
    fiscal year 2000. These include such items as: Infrastructure for
    Security Installations which provides the infrastructure accommodations
    to support the continued installation by the Capitol Police of door
    controls, alarms, cameras and other security devices throughout the
    Capitol Complex; Security Project Support that will provide the AOC
    with technical staffing resources to coordinate, oversee, and implement
    the design and construction of capital improvements that were funded in
    the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental and Appropriations
    Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277; and, Secure Attic and Basement Areas for
    Senate Office Buildings, that will provide for the construction of
    physical barriers in various storage areas of the Senate. The Board
    also concurred with the AOC and LOC Book Conveyor System Security Plan
    that will provide for access control to the Library of Congress book
    conveyor system; and Collections Security that will provide for the
    continued installation of card readers and other security sensors and
    devices to protect the Library's collections.
        The U.S. Capitol Police Board is grateful for your efforts to pass
    and fund the pay parity and benefits package for our personnel last
    year. The greatest asset of any organization, whether public or
    private, is its personnel. The U.S. Capitol Police relies on the
    ability, dedication, and contribution of its personnel at all levels in
    order to meet its mission. Thanks to these pay and benefit initiatives,
    we believe that we are now in a better position to retain our
    experienced officers while attracting highly-qualified candidates.
        The members of the U.S. Capitol Police Board and I would like to
    express special thanks to this Committee for the strong support you
    provided to the U.S. Capitol Police in the aftermath of the tragic
    deaths of Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. The
    outpouring of concern and support from members of Congress, the
    Congressional community, and the public helped to sustain the families
    of our fallen heroes and the men and women who continue to serve. We
    are pleased to report that pursuant to Public Law 105-223, the Board
    has made a substantial distribution from the Capitol Police Memorial
    Fund. This contribution was equally divided between the Chestnut and
    Gibson families.
        We look forward to working with the Committee as we strive to meet
    the challenges and demands of protecting the Capitol Complex and those
    who work and visit here. A detailed budget has been previously
    submitted to the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear
    before you and we will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Gary L. Abrecht
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am honored to appear
    before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the
    United States Capitol Police.
        As you are aware, 1998 proved to be a difficult and challenging
    year. On July 24th, Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M.
    Gibson were killed in the line of duty inside the United States
    Capitol. The service and sacrifice of these fine officers reminds us
    all of the inherently dangerous and unpredictable nature of our
    mission. The ability of Congress to safely and freely perform its
    legislative function is inextricably tied to the ability of the U.S.
    Capitol Police to perform its law enforcement, security, and protective
    function. The July 24th attack on the Capitol underscored that bond. So
    did the response from the Congress and the Congressional community to
    our loss. It was clear that the deaths of J.J. and John also struck a
    chord with the American people and individuals around the world because
    the Department was overwhelmed with expressions of sympathy and
    support. The kinds words of support and the donations of flowers, food,
    cards and letters helped us through this trying time. Likewise, people
    generously contributed to the Memorial Fund which Congress graciously
    established to aid the families of our fallen heroes. On behalf of the
    men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police, I would also like to thank
    Congress for granting the unprecedented honor of holding a
    Congressional Tribute for Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson in the
    Rotunda of the Capitol.
        As difficult as it was, the mission of the Department proceeded.
    Shortly after the shootings, security was again heightened in the wake
    of the terrorist attack on the American embassies in east Africa. The
    recent military action in Iraq also raised the specter of terrorism.
    Through it all, the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police rose to
    the challenge and performed their duty in a professional and effective
    manner. I am proud to be associated with such an outstanding group of
    individuals.
        In the aftermath of the shootings and the other incidents which
    affected security, a comprehensive security survey of the Capitol
    Complex was conducted at the direction of the Capitol Police Board. The
    security task force, which was comprised of security experts from
    federal law enforcement agencies and the private sector, used the 1995
    U.S. Capitol Police/U.S. Secret Service study as a base-line. The
    preliminary results of the study were transmitted to the committees of
    jurisdiction for their consideration and funding was provided for the
    recommended security upgrades through Public Law 105-277.
        In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 105-277, an
    integrated implementation plan was submitted to the authorizing and
    appropriations committees detailing the first phase of the security
    enhancements to the Capitol Complex and the Library of Congress
    buildings and grounds. The plan includes adding an additional 260
    police personnel to the Department, providing upgraded equipment to our
    officers, and obtaining state-of-the-art physical security equipment.
    The segment of the plan which addresses the personnel increase has been
    approved by all committees and we have begun an aggressive recruitment
    and training agenda to fill these positions and deploy additional
    officers in the field. Just last week, the House Administration
    Committee and Appropriation Committee approved the remaining parts of
    the Security Enhancement Implementation Plan. Your prompt consideration
    and approval of the remaining parts of the plan will allow us to move
    ahead expeditiously with these very important security issues.
        With the addition of 260 police personnel over a two-year period,
    my concern regarding the inadequacy of several of our facilities to
    meet the mission of the Department has deepened. Several facilities
    currently used by the U.S. Capitol Police can no longer adequately
    support the mission of the Department. Others are in need of repair and
    expansion or relocation to another site. In addition, our training
    facilities, which consist of three converted offices in the Ford House
    Office Building, are woefully inadequate to support our diverse
    training needs. The Committee has approved funding to the Architect to
    develop a comprehensive facilities needs assessment and space plan for
    the Department and other congressional entities. This study, known as
    the Capitol Complex Integrated Security Facilities Program, is
    currently underway. It will examine the long-term facilities
    requirements of the U.S. Capitol Police in the areas of training,
    administrative and security operations, and personnel support. We look
    forward to working with the Committee to address this critical issue
    once the final report has been submitted. In the short term, the
    Architect is addressing several issues relating to the condition and
    functionality of numerous facilities currently used by the police. Your
    favorable consideration of the Architect's repair and improvement
    requests will ensure that our personnel can be provided with clean,
    safe, and functional working environments until such time as the long-
    term police facilities issues are resolved.
        As you are aware, last year the General Accounting Office (GAO) was
    tasked with conducting an evaluation of U.S. Capitol Police
    administrative operations in the areas of financial management, human
    resource management, and information technology management. I have been
    briefed by the GAO staff and last week was provided with the final
    report by their consultant, Booz-Allen & Hamilton. At the direction and
    supervision of the Board, we have begun addressing issues raised in the
    report. These actions include preparing a draft reorganization plan;
    acquiring the resources for preparing a strategic plan; and rectifying
    staffing deficiencies in the areas of financial management, information
    technology, and human resources management. In addition, the creation
    of an improved policy review and personnel evaluation process is under
    way. This report was issued at a propitious time for the U.S. Capitol
    Police. Our administrative infrastructure is being strained by the
    functions related to the expansion of the Department and associated
    security projects. This report will provide us with a blueprint to make
    needed adjustments to our administrative functions so they can
    effectively and efficiently support the core mission of the Department.
        Another issue which is critical to the core mission of the
    Department is the Year 2000 computer conversion. We have identified
    nineteen mission critical computer systems which must become Y2K
    compliant. Currently, we have renovated fourteen of these systems and
    validated ten. The validation of two additional systems is 98 percent
    complete. Currently, we have ten systems Y2K compliant and in
    operation. Of the remaining nine systems, two are 98 percent complete
    and one is 50 percent complete. The remaining six systems are being
    renovated in conjunction with the Office of the Senate Sergeant at
    Arms, the Metropolitan Police, or are otherwise the sole responsibility
    of the USCP. We project full Year 2000 computer compliance for all
    nineteen U.S. Capitol Police systems by September, 1999. It should be
    noted that, as a precaution, we have begun continency planning to
    ensure that our core life-safety, security, protective, and law
    enforcement operations can proceed unhindered in the event of
    significant, unanticipated Y2K disruptions affecting our critical
    computer functions.
        On a related matter, the USCP fiscal year 2000 budget request also
    includes funds to cover the Department's computer and
    telecommunications expenses. These funds were previously taken from the
    budget of the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. If approved, the
    Department will reimburse the Senate Sergeant at Arms for these
    services. I would like to point out that should these amounts not be
    approved, they will need to be restored to the Senate Sergeant at Arms
    fiscal year 2000 budget.
        The majority of the increase contained in the U.S. Capitol Police
    fiscal year 2000 Budget Request is the result of funding needed to
    sustain the revised longevity rates and the differentials for Sunday,
    holiday, and evening shifts that were approved by the authorizing and
    appropriations committees in fiscal year 1999. In addition, funding is
    included to cover the anticipated COLA and pay comparability increases
    and associated personnel benefits.
        The final significant increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget is in
    the category of life-cycle replacement costs. It is essential to the
    operation of the Department that our officers utilize equipment which
    is up-to-date and able to meet the demands of police and security work.
    Therefore, we have requested funding to methodically replace physical
    security systems, vehicles, and police equipment. The life-cycle
    replacement of such items will ensure that we have ready access to
    modern, safe and fully functional equipment. The Department has been
    unable to adhere to the life-cycle replacement program, particularly
    with regard to fleet vehicle replacement, due to reprogramming and
    other funding restrictions in previous budget cycles.
        In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for your efforts to
    provide our personnel with salary adjustments during in fiscal year
    1999. In doing so, you helped us achieve pay parity with other similar
    federal law enforcement agencies. This action has resulted in improved
    morale, better retention, and an increase in the number of qualified
    applicants.
        I am proud of the level and quality of service the men and women of
    the U.S. Capitol Police provide on a daily basis. As we saw last year,
    securing the Capitol Complex is a daunting and dangerous task. With
    your continued support and guidance, I am confident that we will be
    prepared to meet the challenges and demands of the coming year.
        I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

        Senator Bennett. Do you have the money in your proposed
    budget for that replacement or would that be additional funds?
        Mr. Ziglar. No, sir, we have that money in the budget.
        Senator Bennett. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Ziglar. With respect to the budget, you have outlined
    pretty much the numbers, the $9,187,000, which is a $7,106,000
    increase over the 1999 budget. I might also add that, Senator
    Feinstein, I think you noted that only $9 million of that $90
    million is for non-salary items. So it is quite clear that most
    of our dollars go to personnel, as it should be. I mean, that
    is what we are here to do, to provide that kind of security.
        Let me tell you a little bit about the breakdown of the two
    significant pieces of the $7 million above last year;
    $4,353,000 of that is salary-related or personnel cost-related,
    the COLA and some merit increases and things like that. So the
    biggest part of that $7 million is actually related to the
    salary item.
        The other large part is $1,761,000 for computer and
    telecom. There is a little history here I would like to tell
    you about, which I am sure you know. In the past the Sergeant
    at Arms budget has provided a large chunk of the money for
    computer and telecom support, that was not in the Capitol
    Police budget. We have on average over the last few years spent
    between $500,000 and $600,000 for computer-telecom, which has
    been unfortunately only at a bare maintenance level. It has not
    provided for any upgrade in the technology. So we have really
    fallen behind technologically in the Police Department.
        We are proposing, as the Appropriations Committee suggested
    that those telecom-computer items go into the Capitol Police
    budget and we not have them in the Sergeant at Arms budget. I
    think the House is inclined to go along with that now. At least
    I got that feeling from our discussions with them. And our
    $1,761,000, which of course is higher than the $500,000 or
    $600,000 that we have had in the past, represents technology
    upgrades, not just the maintenance level that we had been
    supplying.
        The other thing that I think is important is that in doing
    this in the Capitol Police budget, they will have the
    responsibility and flexibilities to manage their IT programs.
    Quite frankly they have in the past been forced to accept what
    the Sergeant at Arms technical people have said they are going
    to buy or they are going to use, as opposed to being able to
    independently evaluate what would be best in terms of
    technology for the police. So I think having it in the police
    budget, subject to oversight of this committee and obviously
    the House committee and the Capitol Police Board, is a good
    idea for making sure that we are at the cutting edge of
    technology.

                     compatibility with other Police forces

        Senator Bennett. Let me interrupt you with a question. It
    may be more appropriate later on, but while I am thinking about
    it let me just ask you now. As you move to replace some of this
    technology and communications equipment, what about making it
    compatible with other police forces on the Hill?
        You have the Library of Congress police force.
        Mr. Abrecht. I raised that issue yesterday actually at the
    meeting that we were discussing earlier, that we did want to
    achieve interoperability with the Library and the Supreme Court
    as a result of this.
        Senator Bennett. Right.
        Mr. Abrecht. And to the extent feasible with the
    Metropolitan Police Force as well, who surround us on every
    side.
        Senator Bennett. It has been my experience that every
    police department loves its own toys and they want to have
    their version. I do not mean to refer to these things as
    ``toys'' because they are clearly not. But that kind of
    mentality does sometimes get in the way, and somebody who is
    going to disturb activities on Capitol Hill is not going to
    observe the niceties of, gee, I am now in the Supreme Court
    precinct, and now I am crossing over to the Library of
    Congress, and the Capitol Police and, as you say, Chief
    Abrecht, the Metropolitan Police as well.
        So I am willing to support the funding for the increase in
    the technology and an increased level, but I wanted to put that
    caveat in your conversation.
        Mr. Ziglar. Senator, if you will indulge me in a little
    anecdote from the impeachment trial. I had the good fortune to
    have known the Chief Justice for some 30 years, having clerked
    up at the Court when he was there and also worked with him at
    the Justice Department before then. During the course of the
    impeachment trial there were some pauses where he was sitting
    around and I was talking to him, and I raised this issue with
    him about compatibility of the technology between our police
    forces, and we chatted about it.
        He is very much supportive of it, in fact to the point that
    he had his communications chief over there give me a call. So
    we are very much committed to the idea that we ought to be able
    to talk to each other through all this technology.
        Well, let me close by thanking the committee and the entire
    Congress for the support that you have given the police,
    particularly during the last year when we suffered the tragic
    loss of Officers Chestnut and Gibson. The concern that was
    expressed by everyone I think gave great strength to those
    families, as well as to the entire Police Department.
        On a happier note, I am also pleased to report that just
    within the last couple of weeks we have made a sizable
    distribution to those families from the Police Memorial Fund,
    which was made possible by the generous contributions from lots
    of people both up here and around the country.
        So we thank you very much. We thank you for this
    opportunity, and my colleagues and I would be very happy to
    answer any questions you have.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.

                                  Y2K program

        I appreciate your comments about Y2K. It is my
    understanding that you still do not have your Y2K plan on
    paper, have not committed it to a formal document. Is that
    true?
        Mr. Abrecht. I do not think that is totally fair. I think
    we have done a tremendous amount of work with the GAO and we
    have submitted draft plans to them, and by the end of this
    month we will have a formal plan that they have agreed to.
        Senator Bennett. OK.
        Mr. Ziglar. Senator, if I could comment on that.
        Senator Bennett. Sure.
        Mr. Ziglar. I had a meeting separate from the Police
    Department with GAO to review the Police Department Y2K
    program. And while it is not on paper in the formal sense, GAO
    was quite comfortable with the progress that has been made
    there and the approach that has been taken, and brought a
    number of pieces of paper for me to review on that.
        Senator Bennett. Fine.

                               Management review

        Now let us go to the management review and recommendations.
    You are having a retreat this week to talk about that. Who is
    responsible for implementing the recommendations? Will that be
    hammered out in the retreat, the specific names?
        Mr. Ziglar. Yes, sir. In fact, Booz-Allen folks are coming.
    The people who actually worked on it are going to be spending
    Friday, I believe it is Friday morning with us. We will then
    iron out how exactly how we are going to approach it.
        The House has asked for us to give some feedback on the
    report, our reaction to it, by March 31 and a final plan on the
    implementation strategy by April 30. So we are on a time line
    from the House side and, frankly, I am hoping that we will be
    ahead of that time line and in process before those deadlines.
        Senator Bennett. Tell us about your efforts to cross-
    service your accounting functions?
        Mr. Ziglar. Do you want to?
        Mr. Abrecht. I will be glad to.
        This is one of the three areas that we had asked for this
    evaluation to consider, because it is one of the areas where we
    knew we had difficulties. Our financial management system is
    very, very old. It runs on the Senate mainframe. It has serious
    problems. We have been looking for a solution to that problem.
        One of the things that Booz-Allen recommended is that we
    ought to get some other agency to cross-service that function.
    So I had my director of financial management, through the
    Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council look for a cross-
    servicing option. The option that seems to be best suited to us
    is the General Accounting Office. They have offered to cross-
    service that function for us. They have done some testing. It
    shows that it can be accomplished. We are very excited that
    that is probably the very best solution for us. They are
    planning to charge a very modest fee for this and it seems like
    the ideal solution for us. We are very excited and hopeful that
    the budget that you are considering today will be administered
    through their accounting system.
        Senator Bennett. You say they will charge you a modest fee.
    Do you experience concomitant savings by virtue of having that
    now done out, where the net cost stays the same? Or are we
    looking at increased costs?
        Mr. Abrecht. It is hard to tell, because the system that we
    are currently running on is essentially the Sergeant at Arms
    mainframe. So if there is any savings, it would be in the
    operating costs of the Sergeant at Arms mainframe. I expect
    that would be the only savings that would be involved. There
    may even be some additional staffing involved.
        It is a much better system. It requires, unfortunately,
    that we keep much better records than we currently do, so there
    are some additional personnel that will probably be required to
    make this work. They are provided for in the security
    enhancement plan.
        Senator Bennett. Are they provided for in this budget?
        Mr. Abrecht. No, they are provided for in the security
    enhancement plan. We anticipated that bringing on the
    additional officers and increasing the complexity of our
    physical security would ultimately have an additional impact on
    our infrastructure. So as part of the 260 additional personnel,
    we have a small number in there for administrative support.
    There are five for the Office of Financial Management to bring
    that operation up to snuff.

                               Payroll increases

        Senator Bennett. Do I understand correctly that, back to
    your point, Mr. Ziglar, about the payroll portion of the
    increase, that there are no increases in FTE's, that this is
    entirely COLA's and merit pay for your existing FTE's?
        Mr. Ziglar. Correct. The new FTE's that will come on
    through the enhancement plan are being funded through that
    enhancement plan through fiscal year 2000. In 2001 our budget,
    the Capitol Police budget, will reflect those additional hires.
    We estimate that cost to be about $12 million.
        Senator Bennett. How big a number do you use in the COLA,
    what percentage?
        Mr. Abrecht. We asked the Congressional Budget Office to
    provide us what they expect the COLA to be.
        Senator Bennett. I do not think it is going to be as high.
    Instinctively, I am saying that is an awful lot of merit
    increases to get the total.
        Mr. Abrecht. There are no merit increases actually at all.
    That was a misstatement. We have never been authorized to do
    merit increases, Mr. Chairman.
        In addition to the COLA's, there is $1.3 million in there
    which is the result of underfunding in the past. We have not
    been funded at our funded level in fact.
        Senator Bennett. I see.
        Mr. Abrecht. There is some attrition that has always been
    counted on and fortunately, thanks to the support of the
    committee in providing pay parity for our people in this last
    year, our attrition has gotten very, very low. We do not
    anticipate that we are going to lose nearly as many people.
        So the float that you get while you are replacing somebody
    who attrites is not going to be there this year.
        Senator Bennett. I see, OK.
        Mr. Abrecht. So in order to fund the budget at the 1,251
    level we are going to need more money than we had in the past
    year, because we really were underfunded.
        Senator Bennett. I see, OK.
        Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, Bruce Holmberg just handed me a
    note that the assumptions that we use is a 4.3 percent COLA and
    a half percent comparability pay, the assumptions that went
    into this budget.
        Senator Bennett. I will not argue with whoever does the
    numbers, but that strikes me as a pretty high COLA in an age
    when, according to Alan Greenspan, inflation is dead and we are
    nonetheless adjusting for it at the rate of 4 percent. That is
    fairly high.
        Mr. Ziglar. We may have some money to give back to you.
        Senator Bennett. Well, I will not hold my breath for that.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Abrecht. My only hope there, Mr. Chairman, is that--and
    this is my mantra that you have heard for many years--that we
    remain comparable with the executive branch.
        Senator Bennett. Right.
        Mr. Abrecht. Whatever you give, whatever the government
    ultimately gives to the executive branch, that we remain there.
        Senator Bennett. I think that is legitimate, and that is
    not an issue that we can address.
        You made reference to the rest of the increases coming out
    of a shifting of responsibility from the Sergeant at Arms to
    the police.
        Mr. Ziglar. A large part of it, not the entire amount.
        Senator Bennett. And of course that raises the question, is
    the Sergeant at Arms budget going to reflect a decrease by
    virtue of that shift? I have asked that question before and
    they have been unable to find the decrease. They just find the
    increase somehow.
        Are we going to see that again this year?
        Mr. Ziglar. It is a $500,000 number. This year, as you
    know, the Sergeant at Arms is asking for a relatively sizable
    increase that is reflective largely of technology and those
    sorts of things. So the answer is we are not going to plan to
    give $500,000 or $600,000 to the police this year, but we will
    try to parse it and respond to you when we come back on March
    24th.

                            Security upgrade project

        Senator Bennett. Can you talk to us about your security
    upgrade project?
        Mr. Abrecht. Absolutely. You will recall the context here
    was that in 1995 a substantial survey of the Capitol grounds, a
    security survey of the whole complex, was accomplished jointly
    with United States Secret Service. We had planned to do a
    review of that study in 1998, and after the tragedy on July
    24th we moved that up. We planned to do it in the fall and we
    started working on it right away.
        We brought in experts from several of the large executive
    branch agencies. The United States Marshals were very helpful,
    the Secret Service, people who have done this for the executive
    branch.
        From that we developed a number of recommendations, which
    ultimately were pared down some in the meetings with various
    committees and $106 million was included in the omnibus
    supplemental, including $25 million for personnel, which we
    have already discussed. The rest of it was primarily physical
    security upgrades, although there is some money in there to
    support the new officers, for equipment for them, for vests,
    for new weapons. But the bulk of it goes to physical security
    in a number of areas.
        Most of them I think have some law enforcement sensitivity,
    so I would rather not go into----
        Senator Bennett. Right.
        Mr. Abrecht (continuing). The nitty-gritty details. But
    obviously we are looking to protect the Congress against
    terrorists, terrorism fundamentally, in all the different ways
    that the Congress could be assaulted from a terrorist
    standpoint. We tried to address every one of them in this
    study.
        Senator Bennett. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

                         Booz-Allen and Hamilton report

        I wanted to go and just speak for a moment about some of
    the Booz-Allen and Hamilton recommendations. It is my
    understanding that the report contains some specific
    recommendations on how you can improve operations in
    administrative areas. The chairman referred to certain cross-
    cutting issues. I think the report also found that the current
    organizational structure neither facilitates communications
    between the operations and the administrative support functions
    nor integrates administrative support functions into the
    management process.
        It went on to say that as an organization the Capitol
    Police does not utilize formal strategic planning to help plan
    and direct changes in current administrative support activities
    which are needed to support future operational demands, and
    that your support operations lack current and complete
    operating policies and procedures.
        The report goes on to recommend that you create an
    assistant chief for administration, who would report directly
    to the police chief. In making this recommendation, they note
    that potential candidates should have operational and
    administrative experience. In addition, they say this
    individual should possess strong managerial skills, have a
    vision and an understanding of how an effective and efficient
    administrative structure can support police operations.
        They also say that this individual should institute a
    formal strategic planning process for administrative operations
    and that the objective should be a mission and vision for
    operations within the department. They identify key
    administrative functions that need to be developed and
    maintained with formalized policies and procedures that need to
    be followed to carry out the functions.
        My questions are: Do you agree with those recommendations
    and are you going to establish the position?
        Mr. Abrecht. I think that is one of the subjects that the
    Board will clearly be discussing on Friday. We have drafted a
    reorganization plan that follows Booz-Allen's recommendations
    almost to the letter, with some very minor tweaks based on
    things that we know that they perhaps do not know about our
    organization, and we are going to be discussing that with the
    Board. At least that is my--chairman?
        Mr. Ziglar. Senator, at an intellectual level, if the facts
    as presented in the report are accurate--and I have not had the
    opportunity, quite frankly, to do that level of due diligence
    on the Police Department. If the facts as presented are correct
    in terms of lack of integration of administrative functions and
    that sort of thing, then I think those recommendations are
    completely legitimate.
        I want to--and I come from a management background--do due
    diligence, and that is one of the reasons we are going to have
    six or seven people from Booz-Allen there on Friday morning, to
    ask a lot of questions and to put them to the proof that that
    is in fact the case. And if it is the case, absolutely I agree
    that that is what we need to do.
        Senator Feinstein. I am sort of familiar in my past life
    with police departments. It was my highest priority as mayor.
        Senator Bennett. I think that is an understatement.
        Senator Feinstein. And I brought the department up to its
    fully authorized strength and really pushed to bring it into
    the modern age. That is one of the most difficult things for
    police to do. I recognize that, and I do not want to be overly
    critical.
        I do, just from what I have read, sense that there is a
    deficit here and that that has to be recognized and it has to
    be met in some way. I guess what I want you to know is I am
    going to be watching to see if it happens.
        Mr. Ziglar. Would you mind being a consultant? [Laughter.]
        Mr. Abrecht. I assure you it is going to happen, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Because for some reason this always
    seems to threaten people and it should not. It really should
    not. And particularly here, because some of the concerns that
    you mentioned, Chief, are really very valid concerns, you know,
    and I think you need the most up to date and the best structure
    here.
        Well, let me ask, put the question this way. With respect
    to the absence of strategic planning for your administrative
    functions, do you agree with the conclusion of the report that
    you need to anticipate, anticipate modifying existing
    administrative capabilities to support your operations?
        Mr. Abrecht. Absolutely. I think--I hope the Congress will
    remember that we asked for this study. We determined that these
    weaknesses existed long before I ever heard of the name Booz-
    Allen. We determined that we need to strengthen these three
    areas of our operation, that we had devoted perhaps too much of
    our resources to making sure that we got the job done and not
    enough to making sure that our infrastructure was in place.
        We asked that there be a study to give us some guidance on
    this, and that is exactly what this is and we intend to
    implement this aggressively and get it done in the immediate
    future.
        Senator Feinstein. Good.
        Mr. Abrecht. I assure you, I am not threatened by this
    study.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, no, I did not say you. I just said
    my experience has been that people are threatened by it.
        Mr. Abrecht. We want to get these problems behind us. I
    think a lot of them are a result of things outside, that have
    happened outside of our control. We took over the personnel
    functions of this Police Department, which used to be split
    between the Senate Disbursing Office and the House Finance
    Office, and we became our own personnel enterprise and we
    underresourced that when we took it over and we did not take
    the time and put enough effort into getting it up to speed.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask another question. Do
    you currently have the resources, both in terms of technical
    skills and available staff, to initiate the kind of review that
    is necessary to really look at this?
        Mr. Ziglar. The answer is that by and large I believe we
    do, but we will be reaching outside for some help. The form of
    that help is yet to be determined. But I feel like it is good
    to have somebody on the outside looking in and helping you with
    that.
        Senator Feinstein. And you have the budget to do that? I
    mean, it is budgeted?
        Mr. Ziglar. Yes.
        Mr. Abrecht. The security enhancement plan contains a
    contingency item where there is some money for studies, and we
    intend to use, with the committee's approval, some very small
    portion of that to assist us to facilitate these management
    studies and improvements.
        Senator Feinstein. All right.

                         Additional committee questions

        Mr. Chairman, I have some questions on the financial system
    itself. May I submit them for the record and ask them to answer
    them?
        Senator Bennett. Absolutely.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
    being here.
        Again, we appreciate the openness with which the Capitol
    Police has addressed these problems. It is very refreshing. We
    want to be as helpful as we can.
        Mr. Ziglar. We look forward, Mr. Chairman, to coming back
    and telling you of the progress that we have made.
        Senator Bennett. Very good.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Board for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. With respect to the lack of an efficient financial
    management system, Booz-Allen, & Hamilton felt that a needs assessment
    would be the first step in determining the future financial needs of
    the USCP. Has the USCP conducted a comprehensive needs assessment to
    determine your future system capabilities?
        Answer. Over a year ago, the USCP Office of Financial Management
    began a preliminary needs assessment by investigating the Federal
    Financial Management Systems used by other federal agencies and cross-
    servicing options. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was cooperative
    and anxious to provide assistance in the solution of the USCP's
    financial management system deficiencies. The financial management
    system used by GAO was also widely used and accepted throughout the
    federal financial community.
        The General Accounting Office (GAO) Financial Management System
    (FMS) is American Management Systems (AMS) software available on the
    GSA Financial Management System Software (FMSS) schedule. As a
    contractor on this schedule, the system is certified by the Operations
    Compatibility Verification Team consisting of representatives from the
    Office of Management and Budget, Department of Treasury, and the
    General Services Administration as being compliant with the Joint
    Financial Managers Improvement Program (JFMIP) Core Financial System
    requirements which includes the Federal Managers' Financial Improvement
    Act (FMFIA), CFO Act, and OMB Circulars A-127 and A-130 related to
    federal financial systems. The AMS FMS is currently used by 38 federal
    agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs Service,
    U.S. Marshals Service, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
        The remaining internal requirements relative to proprietary
    managerial reporting within the USCP will be developed as part of the
    strategic planning process. The FMS System has the capability to
    provide for such reporting.
        Currently, the USCP is in the process of procuring a facilitator to
    develop a strategic plan, using the guidelines of the Government
    Performance and Results Act, and organizational information from key
    USCP staff. The strategic plan will include a comprehensive needs
    assessment to determine the future financial system requirements for
    the USCP.
        Question. What were the results of the assessment?
        The results of the assessment will be available at the completion
    of the USCP's strategic plan which is projected to be awarded and
    completed within six months.
        Question. BAH also indicated that they thought that a cross-
    servicing arrangement would be the most efficient way to proceed,
    rather than the purchase by the Capitol Police of a new system
    outright. Do you agree and are you currently pursuing a cross-servicing
    agreement?
        Answer. If an existing federal financial system meets the future
    financial management needs of the USCP, to be determined in the USCP
    strategic plan, a cross-servicing agreement would be the most efficient
    way to proceed. The General Accounting Office completed a cost
    comparison analysis based upon current USCP operations. The GAO paper
    showed that significant savings would be achieved in salaries,
    contractor support services, licensing fees, and computer time through
    cross-servicing. Further, this arrangement is consistent with the
    strategies contained in the Legislative Branch Financial Managers'
    Council which promotes cross-servicing wherever possible to achieve
    cost savings.
        Question. What analysis was done to support such an arrangement?
        Answer. An analysis was done by GAO based upon the current
    operation of the USCP including the volume of USCP transactions. Cost
    estimates for two alternative cross-servicing arrangements were
    completed. An analysis of purchasing a system for the USCP was not
    completed, however, the licensing fee for a cross-serviced USCP is
    $55,000 which is based on 25 percent of GAO's licensing fee. A final
    analysis will be completed with the USCP strategic plan.
        Question. If the USCP enters into a cross-servicing arrangement,
    does the USCP currently have the staffing both in terms of numbers and
    skills to effectively utilize the enhanced capabilities?
        Answer. The USCP does not have the staffing in terms of numbers or
    skills to effectively implement and utilize the enhanced capabilities
    of a new financial management system. A reorganization plan has been
    proposed based upon the structure of other small federal agencies,
    which includes establishing several key positions with specific
    financial management skill sets. The plan includes positions to
    accommodate the additional workload to implement the recommendations of
    the Booz-Allen and Hamilton Review and additional continuing financial
    management accountability, control, and planning duties. Although a
    cross-servicing arrangement will provide the required hardware and
    software for a financial management system, the Capitol Police must
    have professionally trained staff to implement, operate, and maintain
    the USCP financial information in the system. A reevaluation of the
    reorganization plan will be completed with the development of the USCP
    strategic plan.
                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

    STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN M. HANTMAN, AIA, ARCHITECT OF
                THE CAPITOL
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MICHAEL G. TURNBULL, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
            LYNNE THEISS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            AMITA POOLE, SUPERVISING ENGINEER, CAPITOL BUILDING
            STUART PREGNALL, BUDGET OFFICER

                                opening remarks

        Senator Bennett. All right, we will now hear from Mr.
    Hantman.
        Mr. Hantman. Change chairs?
        Senator Bennett. Change chairs.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Hantman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. All right. Mr. Hantman, you were
    mercifully ignored in the questions in the last panel, but I
    gather that will not happen this time.
        The Architect has requested $287.3 million and, excluding
    the funds that Congress provided last year for the visitors
    center, this is a 43 percent increase over the fiscal 1999
    level, and we will obviously want to hear about that.
        Now, you are joined by the new Assistant Architect of the
    Capitol, Mr. Turnbull, who joined the office last June. Mr.
    Turnbull, we welcome you to your first hearing.
        Mr. Pregnall, we welcome you as well.
        Now, in addition to the Y2K issue, the committee's top
    priority for the Architect of the Capitol is the implementation
    of a financial management system that meets Federal accounting
    standards. The system that is chosen must be designed and
    utilized to provide the financial information required by the
    authorization and appropriations committees. It is critical,
    given the increase in funds and projects that the Architect is
    engaged in.
        Mr. Hantman is a very ambitious Architect and has
    undertaken a number of projects, some of which are long
    overdue, and we congratulate you, sir, on your initiative in
    doing that. The Capitol visitors center of course is one of
    those, but it is also a project that clearly needs a good
    accounting system so that we can understand where we are and
    what we are getting for that.
        We have received your testimony, sir. We will include it in
    the record in its entirety.
        Senator Feinstein, do you have any comments before we go to
    the witness?
        Senator Feinstein. No, please go ahead.
        Senator Bennett. All right. Mr. Hantman, we are here to
    hear what you have to tell us.

                               opening statement

        Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course I am
    pleased to appear here. This is the third time I have appeared
    before this committee and I certainly look forward to
    continuing to work with you and with Senator Feinstein. I think
    the links between the Rules Committee and this committee are
    very important, and I look forward to working with you in
    making sure that we have that tie-in.
        As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the body of our written
    statement pretty well focuses on the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation request and we certainly intend to talk about
    that today. But there are also several appendices to the
    statement that really deal with issues that are fundamental to
    how we are restructuring this agency. A lot of changes have
    occurred.
        I have been here 2 years now as of last month and a lot of
    new criteria, Congressional responsibilities, have been placed
    upon this agency that did not exist before--the Congressional
    Accountability Act, the AOC Human Resources Act. All of these
    things--the advent of unionization on the Hill, the issues of
    life safety, of security, are things that really have come to
    the fore much more so than they had in the past. All of these
    things are touched upon in specific appendices related to the
    financial analysis.
        But what I would like to do is give you kind of an overview
    on some of these issues, talk about them, and then come back to
    some of the clear, fundamental building blocks we need to
    address--obviously, Y2K, the FMS system, and several of the
    other issues.

                         Botanic Garden reconstruction

        First, on the Capitol side, you joined us, Mr. Chairman, to
    celebrate the groundbreaking for the Botanic Garden
    Conservatory some months ago. I would like to report that that
    project was awarded under budget. At this point in time we have
    Clark Construction out there, as you know. We met some of their
    officers at the groundbreaking. They are proceeding very well.
        Our goal is to have the construction completed by September
    of the year 2000. Concurrently with that, the National Fund for
    the U.S. Botanic Garden, which is a $10 million privately
    raised component of funding, to complete that block area, to
    have outdoor facilities such as interpretive learning centers
    and a first ladies garden and butterfly gardens, and things
    that work contiguously with the Botanic Garden. That is
    scheduled to be constructed and completed concurrently with the
    Botanic Garden. In fact, the new chairman, Theresa Heinz, we
    just met earlier this week on that and she is very excited
    about this and hopefully raising some additional private
    funding, which we would have to change the legislation to be
    able to accept more funding from the private sector for
    educational programs and things of this nature.

                               prepared statement

        So we are excited about that. We think that project is
    moving forward well.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman
                   general introduction and executive summary
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to
    present the budget for the Architect of the Capitol. I look forward to
    continuing to work closely with this Subcommittee under your leadership
    in an open, professional and constructive manner.
        The body of this written statement focuses, of course, on this
    Agency's fiscal year 2000 appropriation request. Some things, however,
    are not quantifiable even at a budget hearing, but they are important
    to know. This is so because the framework of our request, the
    foundation it is built upon, is fundamentally influenced by the new
    direction this Agency is taking in response to Congress' mandate to
    provide cost effective quality service in support of its day to day
    activities.
        We have, therefore, provided appendices to this statement that
    address issues that are basic to how we are now doing business, and
    form part of the rationale for various aspects of our operating costs
    and the capital budget. These appendices also report on how the Agency
    is working to accomplish the legislative imperatives that the Congress
    has directed us to conform to, including:
        The AOC Human Resources Act, approved in 1994 which directs the
    Agency to establish and maintain a personnel management system
    incorporating fundamental principles found in modern personnel systems.
        The Congressional Accountability Act which created the Office of
    Compliance and the Compliance Board. The Accountability Act, among
    other initiatives, permitted Capitol Hill employees to unionize for the
    first time and placed the AOC under obligations to meet occupational
    safety and health standards.
        (a) Labor Management Relations
        (b) Occupational Safety and Health (Life Safety)
        (c) Civil Rights Laws
        Security issues have continued to be a high priority. Funding has
    been provided to this agency and the Capitol Police Board for a wide
    range of security initiatives.
        These appendices therefore discuss these issues as well as
    providing overviews of the issues of life safety, security, Agency re-
    engineering efforts, etc. as follows:
        Appendix A--Life Safety
        Appendix B--Security
        Appendix C--AOC Human Resources Act
        Appendix D--Congressional Accountability Act
        Appendix E--Labor Relations
        Appendix F--Re-engineering.--The first year of a three year buy out
    program approved in the Fiscal Year 1999 Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Act to facilitate our re-engineering efforts has been
    defined in detail. Approval to proceed has been received from the
    Senate and we are withholding implementation pending Committee on House
    Administration action, in accordance with the legislation.
        Appendix G--Capital Projects
        Appendix H--Year 2000 System Status
        Appendix I--Financial Management System
        All of the initiatives above are supported by our Vision Statement
    and Core Values developed through our strategic planning process:
        Vision Statement.--We will be an innovative and efficient team
    dedicated to service excellence and to preserving, maintaining, and
    enhancing the national treasures entrusted to our care.
        Core Values.--Service Excellence; Stewardship; Integrity;
    Professionalism; Creativity; Loyalty; Respect and Diversity; and
    Teamwork.
        The detailed actions described in the appendices are focused on
    rebuilding this Agency into a unified, yet flexible, responsive and
    quality oriented instrument of the Congress. A brief summary of actions
    to date includes:
        Capital Projects.--Initiating the planning, drawings, contracts and
    construction for work on the $148.8 million of capital projects funded
    in fiscal year 1999 such as:
      --Renovation of Dirksen Senate Office Building.
      --Replacement of East Plant Chillers.
      --Rayburn Building Telecommunications and Fire Sprinklers.
      --Replacement of Roof, Longworth House Office Building 6th and 7th
            Floors.
      --Design of Upgrade to the Cable Television System.
      --Capitol Visitors Center--Note: We are defining the scope for the
            first increment of planning and validation work, as required by
            legislation, so that the authorization of funds can be sought
            from the committees having overview authority.
        Also, a contract for renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden
    Conservatory has been awarded within budget and is now under
    construction. The contiguous privately funded National Garden will
    follow shortly. Another significant project is the rehabilitation of
    the U.S. Capitol Dome. Initial portions of the study for necessary
    renovations of the Dome have been completed and a contract has been
    awarded within the emergency appropriations budget allocation to
    perform the complex task of removing lead-based paint in the
    interstitial space between the inner and outer domes, and, after study,
    repainting the metal. This will permit the necessary detailed
    inspection of all cast iron elements to clearly define the scope of
    work for subsequent phases. Actual work on the site is anticipated to
    commence in March, upon approval to close the Rotunda for two to three
    weeks to erect the protective netting.
        Operations, Personnel Policies and Procedures.--On the operations
    side we have initiated programs to:
      --Install the computer aided facility management system (CAFM)
            selected to track, coordinate, record and evaluate work
            management cost and staffing data throughout the campus, as
            well as to provide enhanced space management capabilities.
      --Improve communications between the agency and our oversight
            entities, our clients, and other instrumentalities of Congress.
      --Upgrade internal administrative systems to achieve a Year 2000 fix
            for our procurement, financial and inventory operations while
            working with the GAO and other Legislative branch agencies to
            procure and implement a modern financial management system.
      --Continue to evaluate and make recommendations on necessary steps to
            provide business continuity for Congressional operations in
            regards to internal and external items possibly affected by the
            year 2000 problem.
      --Initiate an agency wide strategic planning process and implement
            the first segments of the re-engineering program developed
            through that process.
      --Facilitate initiatives with Senate Rules and Administration, the
            Senate Sergeant at Arms, as well as their counterparts on the
            House side, and the Capitol Police, to coordinate services, and
            eliminate overlapping functions.
      --Reorganize Central Staff to better support the work of all of our
            jurisdictions.
      --Rebuild our Human Resources Management Division.
      --Develop standardized policies and procedures for use by all AOC
            jurisdictions across the campus.
      --Provide management training programs for managers at all levels, as
            well as developing training opportunities to further enhance
            skills of our employees.
    Vision and Goals
        I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is important for the Congress to
    know the philosophical underpinnings of these efforts, the foundation
    we are building upon, because there is no ``quick fix'' solution to
    what is required to rebuild and re-engineer business practices in this
    agency. Through our strategic planning process, we are building an
    organization that will be able not only to support the day to day
    workings of both houses of the Congress in an equitable and
    professional manner, but one that will be fully capable of performing
    its duties long after all of us have left Capitol Hill. It is important
    for us to build not only for today but also for the future--not only in
    our capital and maintenance projects, but also to build the proper team
    to perform the necessary day to day functions and services of this
    agency. This effort requires flexibility, including developing the
    proper mix of in-house staff, contractors, (both private and public
    sector), and temporary employees to be called upon as work load
    necessitates.
    Congressionally Mandated Changes
        Change is necessary to assure that this agency makes its values and
    its vision part of our ``corporate culture'' so that all staff members
    truly make them the foundation of our work, the basis for how we do
    business. Many issues were identified and mandated for change in the
    Architect of the Capitol Human Resources Act, and in the Congressional
    Accountability Act. These include the requirement to develop human
    resources management programs consistent with the practices common
    among other federal and private sector organizations. In response, this
    agency has begun initiatives to: more clearly define job descriptions
    and job expectations so that everyone will know the requirements to
    successfully perform their jobs; create a viable job performance and
    evaluation system so that constructive feedback can be given to improve
    performance where necessary, and to recognize and acknowledge those who
    provide quality service and work towards the achievement of our vision
    and goals; assure that uniform and fair standards are developed,
    implemented and used throughout the Agency to the greatest extent
    possible with respect to working conditions, job postings, upward
    mobility, etc.; create a viable equal employment and conciliatory
    programs function that can fairly and efficiently address employee
    concerns in line with the Congressional Accountability Act; provide
    training opportunities to further enhance the trade and professional
    skills of our employees, including helping supervisors better
    communicate with, and monitor the work of, those who report to them.
        These initiatives are all in process and are part of the foundation
    upon which this Agency is being rebuilt. The Congressional
    Accountability Act created the Office of Compliance with the powers to
    monitor compliance with the Act, and granted the employees of this
    agency, among others on Capitol Hill, the right to form unions. As you
    are aware, AFSCME Local 26 has been designated to represent over 600 of
    our custodial and labor employees, and we are in the process of working
    with the union on a range of issues. Also, at this time, our Botanic
    Garden employees and a group of our temporary plumbers have formed
    collective bargaining units and are now represented by unions.
    Review and Evaluation Methodology
        In order to address these realities and comply with these laws,
    this Agency has been undergoing an intensive review of all of its
    operations with the goal of continuously refining and improving the
    quality of our services to Congress and our visitors to Capitol Hill,
    while at the same time responding to the requirements of the laws
    addressed to our employees. As part of this review we are investigating
    how to minimize costs and maximize the efficient delivery of our
    services in fulfillment of our fiduciary responsibilities to the
    American Taxpayer.
        This is in line with recommendations regarding future restructuring
    of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, which included
    investigating sensible ways to streamline the Architect's operation and
    logical areas in which to involve the private sector. Specifically,
    consideration of the private sector was suggested for routine
    maintenance and remedial work, in addition to the major AOC projects
    which are generally competitively awarded to private sector firms. Our
    on-going investigation therefore includes in-depth evaluations of:
    Logical areas in which to involve the private sector; Internal
    opportunities to re-engineer and consolidate existing staff and
    Opportunities to eliminate duplication of services with other
    instrumentalities of the House and Senate.
        To carry out this re-engineering process, this Agency has been
    authorized, subject to approval by our oversight committees, to
    implement early out and buy out programs.
    Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Overview
        I would like to briefly address our fiscal year 2000 budget
    request. The Operating Budget requested for fiscal year 2000,
    $168,366,000, represents a 10.7 percent increase in operating costs.
    Thirty eight percent is due to mandated pay and benefits costs, thirty
    three percent is related to utility increases (mainly related to a 40
    percent water and sewer increase), and 17 percent is related to
    information resources management. It is hoped that future operating
    budget cost savings will be achieved through a three (3) year re-
    engineering effort starting in fiscal year 1999 and continuing in
    fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Savings will be reflected in subsequent
    budgets. As stated earlier, House approval to implement the first year
    of the program is currently pending.
        The request in the Capital Projects portion of the budget is
    significant, $118,907,000. The magnitude of the fiscal year 2000 total
    for cyclical maintenance projects is very much in line with what we had
    projected in the benchmark analysis discussed in my last year's budget
    presentations. That analysis indicated that a ``campus-like'' complex
    of this age, monumental quality and magnitude could expect to expend an
    annual average of approximately 1.7 percent of the replacement value of
    the buildings and infrastructure. Based upon an estimated replacement
    value of $3.6 billion, 1.7 percent would equate to an average target
    reinvestment level of $61.0 million. Because of under investments in
    past years, we are now faced with an above average balloon payment of
    $102.6 million for cyclical maintenance projects. Each project must of
    course stand on its own, and we stand ready to discuss the validity of
    each of the 139 fiscal year 2000 projects at your convenience. They
    have been categorized and prioritized into Life Safety, Security, etc.,
    for the purpose of analysis and decision making.
        Significant project costs included in this request are the
    Renovation of the Dirksen Building, and on the House side, the Cannon
    Garage renovation and the House Chamber Sound System. As I stated at
    last year's hearing, the ongoing study of the necessary repairs and
    repainting of the Capitol Dome would most likely lead to identification
    of increased complexity, and scope of the project, and therefore, cost.
    This project accounts for $28 million of the fiscal year 2000 budget
    request. The overall budget request is discussed in detail below.
    Several graphs follow which provide summary information on the budget
    request. The ``Fiscal Year 2000 Operating and Capital Budget by
    Categories'' breaks out the operating and capital request by
    significant categories. The ``Fiscal Year 2000 Operating and Capital
    Budget'' reflects the history of the Architect of the Capitol's budget
    since fiscal year 1993. The ``Fiscal Year 2000 Capital Requests by
    Category'' reflects the capital project categories and number of
    projects and funding requested in each.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA03.000

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA03.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA03.002

        In closing this introductory section Mr. Chairman, I believe that
    we are creating a foundation of communication and commitment to
    efficient quality service that has already begun to show positive
    results. I look forward to working with you and this Subcommittee in
    the coming year.
               role of the office of the architect of the capitol
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a brief moment to describe
    broadly the role of the agency before I describe our fiscal year 2000
    budget request and the changes that I see on the horizon. By law, the
    Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is the agency responsible
    for the structural and mechanical care, maintenance, cleaning, and
    operation of the buildings and facilities supporting the Congress,
    including the Capitol Power Plant. This responsibility extends to the
    Botanic Garden, the structural and mechanical care and maintenance of
    the Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds, as well as the Supreme
    Court Building and grounds which is funded in a different appropriation
    bill. The office also undertakes the design and construction of new
    facilities and the alteration of existing facilities.
        This Agency has focused significant energy on its first strategic
    planning process. The initial steps of this process involved seeking
    and considering guidance from this Committee as well as our other
    oversight bodies, and have led to the development of a vision of how we
    should proceed to structure our organization to deliver quality
    services to the Congress. The next steps in this process include
    developing specific action plans to achieve our stated goals. A guiding
    philosophy in this strategic planning process includes the need to be
    responsive to our oversight bodies.
        In performing our role, the AOC utilizes staff and private
    consultant expertise to provide the Congress with professional, timely
    and cost effective recommendations. The AOC also manages trade and
    service personnel who are charged with ensuring that the building
    systems operate efficiently and reliably in support of Congressional
    activities. The AOC also administers a wide variety of contracts for
    facility maintenance, professional design, technical and other
    services.
        Critical to achieving this role is the institutional knowledge that
    has accrued in the agency. The value of the long term role of the
    Architect as a neutral and professional advocate for the physical
    environment of the Capitol Complex has been historically recognized by
    the Congress, most recently when it established a ten year renewable
    term for the Architect. Such an advocacy role is no less appropriate
    for the core professional and trades staff. The merit of maintaining a
    long-term view for preserving and protecting the historical environment
    is self-evident. To the credit of the agency, Congressional activities
    have never been interrupted by failure of any major building system. I
    might add parenthetically at this time that since taking office I have
    come to appreciate the value of the institutional knowledge that
    permeates this agency. Considering the responsibilities of our Agency,
    those who provide the services are our greatest asset in carrying out
    our mission to the Congress. All re-engineering efforts we undertake
    recognize the devotion and service of our employees to the agency and
    to the Congress over many years and that they are to be treated, in a
    considered, caring and humane manner. The attached graph ``Full-Time
    Equivalent Employment Budget'' reflects the actual and projected
    reductions in the Architect of the Capitol's employment.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA03.003

        It goes without saying that many of the Congressional buildings are
    national treasures and require intimate knowledge and significant
    planning for their preservation. The U.S. Capitol, which is ``the
    people's building,'' for example, is a unique combination of National
    Capitol, museum, office building, meeting center, ceremonial site, and
    tourist attraction. The building's systems are required to support all
    of these activities while maintaining a secure and safe environment,
    and its architectural design, decorative arts and historical
    significance must all be carefully considered before undertaking any
    work or implementing any changes to the building.
        Another benefit of the neutral, bicameral role of the AOC is the
    ability to provide technical and professional coordination of ``joint''
    activities. Over the years, the role of the office has broadened as a
    result. There are now functions and activities, such as the shuttle
    service and telecommunications, as well as Inaugural and Rotunda
    ceremonies, conducted or supported by the AOC, that are often not
    recognized as being within the scope of the office's professional,
    architectural and engineering roles, yet the Congress has acknowledged
    the merit of the AOC's neutral, bicameral coordination capacity.
        For over 200 years, an officer discharging the role of the
    Architect of the Capitol has provided to the Congress credible,
    professional expertise on these matters. During this time, the
    institution of the Congress has been served by an agency that has
    responded to changing Congressional needs, and will continue to do so.
                       fiscal year 2000 operating budget
        The past two years' appropriations requests were based on a
    comprehensive agency-wide planning and coordination process including
    all cyclical maintenance projects and building system enhancements. The
    thorough, systematic and programmed analysis led to a proposed five-
    year capital budget based on that planning. The current request is
    prioritized into the categories of Life Safety, Security, Cyclical
    Maintenance, Technology and Management Systems, etc. I will now discuss
    our fiscal year 2000 budget request in detail. There are two major
    components to this budget request: an Operating Budget and a Capital
    Budget, as described below. The total budget that I bring to this
    Committee today amounts to $287,273,000, comprised of $168,366,000 for
    operating costs and $118,907,000 for capital costs. That amount,
    adjusted to reduce the House items, totals $233,884,000, of which
    $136,759,000 is for operating costs and $97,125,000 is for capital
    costs.
        Increases in the costs that comprise the operating budget totaling
    $168,366,000--that is, those costs that support operations and
    maintenance, including salaries, have risen by 10.7 percent. Most of
    this increase is attributed to increases in personal services,
    $6,162,000, utilities, $5,418,000, (which is mainly due to the 40
    percent increase in water and sewer rates) and $2,765,000 for
    information resource management. Increases for the maintenance of fire
    and life safety systems and other workload and price level changes have
    also been requested.
        There are opportunities for future savings within our operations
    budget, some of which will require modest investments to achieve, and
    others which we are proceeding with at this time. Under the overall
    category of ``utilities,'' we are confident that investing in modern
    automated control systems at the Power Plant will lead to more
    efficient use of fuels, and reduce the need for staff that presently
    manually monitor the heating and cooling equipment. We are presently
    evaluating two dozen proposals from firms to design these systems.
    Additionally, we recently completed the installation of energy
    efficient lighting fixtures across the campus. These lighting fixtures
    are already saving electrical energy. But the true savings will not be
    realized until after the contractor is reimbursed for the installation
    cost over an eight year period. As required by the Fiscal Year 1999
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, fiscal year 2000 funds have been
    requested to perform an energy survey of all Congressional buildings to
    identify energy conservation measures to achieve a 20 percent energy
    reduction by 2005. Further, although funds are not requested in this
    budget, we are proposing to our authorizing committees that a public/
    private partnership be created to build a co-generation plant to assure
    an inexpensive and constant electrical source for the future.
        The following table indicates these increases by appropriation.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Fiscal Year 1999 Budget        Fiscal Year 2000 Request                 Change
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    FTE           Dollars           FTE           Dollars           FTE           Dollars
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Capitol Buildings Operating Budget......................             388      32,938,000             388      39,391,000  ..............      +6,453,000
    Capitol Grounds Operating Budget........................              75       5,126,000              75       5,378,000  ..............        +252,000
    Senate Office Buildings Operating Budget................             609      37,884,000             609      39,828,000  ..............      +1,944,000
    House Office Buildings Operating Budget.................             649      30,115,000             649      31,607,000  ..............      +1,492,000
    Capitol Power Plant Operating Budget....................              97      32,529,000              97      38,318,000  ..............      +5,789,000
    Library Buildings & Grounds Operating Budget............             144       9,505,000             144      10,466,000  ..............        +961,000
    Botanic Garden Operating Budget.........................              50       3,052,000              50       3,378,000  ..............        +326,000
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.............................................           2,012     151,149,000           2,012    168,366, 000  ..............     +17,217,000
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   fiscal year 2000 five year capital budget
        The fiscal year 2000 capital budget request I present to you today
    flows from the five-year capital budget presented by this agency. It is
    grounded in a comprehensive and systematic agency-wide planning effort
    with in-depth involvement by all of the agency's clients. On the Senate
    side we included the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate.
    On the House side, we included the Sergeant at Arms, the Chief
    Administrative Officer and the Clerk of the House. The U.S. Capitol
    Police provided a detailed outline of their needs, and the Librarian of
    Congress was also extensively involved. A total of 209 capital projects
    have been identified for the five year period.
        There is a need to provide the Congress with such a five-year
    capital improvement budget to assist the Congress in making the wisest
    and best informed financial judgments based on a formal evaluation of
    future cost implications and with the assurance that we have undertaken
    a rigorous examination of related needs.
        The projects included in this budget, therefore, reflect all the
    needs that have been identified to date. We reviewed all of the
    projects that were requested and not funded last fiscal year to
    determine if they should be included in this year's request. We also
    closely examined all those projects that, based on last year's plan,
    had been projected for this fiscal year's request to make sure that
    their inclusion was also still valid. As stated above, also included
    are several significant new projects that were not envisioned last year
    for this budget. These are primarily in the fire and life safety areas
    and also include several client initiatives. We have adjusted the out
    years accordingly and I will continue to evaluate these needs and to
    update them to ensure that the capital budget is responsive to
    budgetary issues, programmatic changes, the condition of the buildings
    and their systems, and any other needs that may arise.
        At prior hearings, we discussed the potential of a future ``balloon
    payment'' that might result from the accumulated costs of deferred
    maintenance. I indicated that based on several infrastructure re-
    investment models we were targeting an average annual reinvestment rate
    of approximately 1.7 percent of the replacement value as an order of
    magnitude funding level for the Capitol complex. Last year that figure
    amounted to roughly $59.3 million, which was in line with the
    $60,500,000 that we had requested for reinvestment. The actual funding
    that was approved totaled $43,700,000, thus leaving a one year
    reinvestment funding gap of $16,800,000. Based on the 1.7 percent
    benchmark, the reinvestment gap for fiscal years 1993 through 1999
    totals more than $155 million. For this reason we are requesting funds
    in fiscal year 2000 and projecting requirements in fiscal year 2001
    that exceed the average reinvestment benchmark. The attached graph
    ``Cyclical Maintenance and Building Renovations'' charts the 1.7
    percent benchmark and the actual projected reinvestment in the Capitol
    complex. Also attached is a table on reinvestment ``Benchmark Data''.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA03.004

                     Architect of the Capitol benchmark data

                        [Fiscal year 2000 funding levels]

    Current Facility Replacement Value......................  $3,600,000,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
                                                              Annual renewal
                                                                  percentage

    AOC Benchmark (Based on Universities of Illinois,
        Michigan, and Stanford and the Army Corps of
        Engineers)..........................................            1.7
    Army Corps of Engineers (Budget Objective)..............            1.75
    University Federal Research Cost Recovery (OMB A-21)....            2.0
    Conservative Commercial Depreciation at 40 Years (IRS
        will accept a faster depreciation rate).............            2.5
    National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences:
        Low Range...........................................            1.5
        High Range..........................................            3.0
    Fiscal year 2000 Capital Request (Request $118,900,000,
        Less $16,300,000 Related to Technology/Management
        Systems, Security, and New Facilities)..............            2.8

        The capital budget that is being presented today is part of a
    multi-year funding plan that provides the Congress a clear view of what
    it will cost to maintain the Legislative Branch infrastructure in
    proper operating condition. The capital budget also identifies
    improvements that respond to new legally imposed standards and
    guidelines, such as improvements to meet the requirements of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act and the occupational safety and health
    standards especially as they relate to life safety issues. There are
    also several projects that will enhance the operations of the Congress,
    as well as new projects requested by our clients to serve their
    programmatic needs. Balancing the needs of maintaining the existing
    infrastructure while keeping pace with technological enhancements and
    program needs is clearly costly and it is sometimes difficult to spread
    these costs out over time in order to avoid significant peaks in the
    budgeting process. But I firmly believe that deferring these
    infrastructure reinvestment costs in the short to mid term can
    ultimately lead to far greater costs in the future. We are all also
    aware of the effect that technological pressures can have on aging
    building systems, especially from the perspective of being capable of
    delivering new telecommunications technologies.
        As discussed above, these projects have been categorized into
    similar types of projects that reflect various initiatives that we are
    now faced with. These include categories such as Life Safety, ADA,
    Security, Cyclical Maintenance, Technology--Management Systems and
    Improvement. The Improvement category has been broken out to reflect
    ``Client'' requests and AOC initiatives. There are several client
    requests included in the Security and Life Safety categories.
        The following table ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request by Category''
    reflects the fiscal year 2000 capital request and the number of
    projects in each category along with the corresponding percentages. The
    same data is also reflected less the House Office Buildings.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                          ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST BY CATEGORY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Excluding House office buildings
                                    Fiscal year                             ----------------------------------------
               Category                 2000     Percent   No. of   Percent  Fiscal year
                                      request             projects               2000     Percent   No. of   Percent
                                                                               request             projects
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life safety...................  $16,063,000     13.5       29      20.9   $9,556,000      9.9       18      15.9
    ADA...........................    2,650,000      2.2        6       4.3    2,650,000      2.7        6       5.3
    Security......................    2,550,000      2.1        5       3.6    2,550,000      2.6        5       4.4
    Cyclical maintenance/            18,870,000     15.9        5       3.6   18,420,000     19.0        4       3.6
     improvement..................
    Cyclical maintenance..........   54,319,000     45.7       58      41.7   43,739,000     45.0       51      45.1
    Technology/management systems.    9,250,000      7.8        9       6.5    9,250,000      9.5        9       8.0
    Improvement:
        AOC.......................    4,400,000      3.7       12       8.6    4,340,000      4.5       11       9.7
        Client....................   10,805,000      9.1       15      10.8    6,620,000      6.8        9       8.0
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...................  118,907,000    100.0      139     100.0   97,125,000    100.0      113     100.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        A more detailed explanation of these categories follows.
        Life Safety--These are programs essential for complying with
    occupational safety and health standards, environmental and hazardous
    material protection, fire code compliance, and other regulatory matters
    affecting the general health and welfare of building occupants. The
    Congressional Accountability Act has placed significant emphasis on
    ensuring that the Capitol complex is free of hazards to the Members,
    Senators, staff and visitors.
        ADA--These are programs essential for complying with the Americans
    with Disabilities Act of 1990. Passage of the Congressional
    Accountability Act has reinforced the resolve to ensure that the
    Capitol complex is free of barriers to the Members, Senators, staff and
    visitors.
        Security--These are programs to meet the needs created by increased
    terrorist activity throughout the world. As a result there is a
    heightened sensitivity toward threats to security at the Capitol
    complex. In addition there are security needs to protect property such
    as the collections at the Library of Congress.
        Cyclical Maintenance--Several of the buildings in the Capitol
    complex are reaching an age and condition that necessitate major
    renovation or replacement of building systems. Various improvements are
    recommended to assure that these building systems continue to provide
    service to occupants.
        Technology--Management Systems--These are programs that reflect the
    internal (AOC) use of computer applications and telecommunications
    systems to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations.
        Improvement--Technology is changing far more rapidly than our
    existing building infrastructures can support and adapt to. This is
    especially true in the rapidly expanding area of telecommunications,
    but there is a corollary effect that is felt in any building system
    that uses any sort of electronic technology for operation or support.
    These are programs that reflect either the replacement of existing
    building systems to generate a significant operational improvement or
    benefit, or the installation of a new type of technology or system to
    create such an improvement or benefit.
        It is important to note that over $12.5 million of the $118.9
    million requested in fiscal year 2000 is for capital projects related
    directly to client requests, i.e., $6,350,000 for the Library of
    Congress, $5,380,000 for the House Chief Administrative Officer and the
    $785,000 balance by various Senate and House offices. I should point
    out that 6 major projects account for over 55 percent of the capital
    budget request: the Capitol Dome Project ($28 million), which is based
    on the parts of the ongoing project studies that have been completed to
    date, the Dirksen Building Renovation ($18 million), the Cannon Garage
    Renovation ($9 million), the Russell Subway Renovation ($6 million),
    and the replacement of Chillers at the Capitol Power Plant ($5
    million).
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Architect of the
    Capitol also has been prioritized as directed by the House and Senate
    Committees on Appropriations. I have sub-divided the former three-
    tiered system further to give greater detail to the Committees for
    their decision-making. The requested items now are identified by the
    following priority levels: 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, and 2-A, 2-B, and so on
    through 3-C at the lowest end of the priority scale.
        Both the categories and priorities will assist the Committee in its
    decision-making process. Clearly this request is large, and I am aware
    of the overall budgetary constraints and the realities of providing
    funding for all these requests. I want to assure the Committee that we
    will work with you and provide our best recommendations as the budget
    review process proceeds.
        It is also important to recognize that these requirements do not
    simply disappear if deferred. If projects requested for fiscal year
    2000 are deferred, the costs to accomplish them will rise due to added
    deterioration, increased maintenance costs to sustain the systems in
    the interim, inflation, and fluctuations in market conditions. The
    deferred projects also will then add to the fiscal year 2001 funding
    need.
        In past testimony, I detailed many of the reasons that there was
    such a large increase in the funding level required for the maintenance
    of our campus infrastructure. Rather than repeat those reasons
    verbatim, I will highlight them here:
      --Replacement of Aging Building Systems.--Several of the buildings in
            the Capitol complex are reaching an age and condition that
            require major renovation or replacement of building systems.
      --Technological Advances.--Technology, especially in
            telecommunications, is changing far more rapidly than our
            existing building infrastructures can support and adapt to.
      --Regulatory Compliance Requirements.--Programs essential for
            complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
            occupational safety and health standards, security, life/
            safety, and environmental and hazardous material protection
            have received very high priority in terms of advancing the
            timetables for completion due largely to passage of the
            Congressional Accountability Act.
      --Security.--Terrorist activity throughout the world has increased,
            and as a result there is a heightened sensitivity toward
            threats to security at the Capitol complex.
      --Infrastructure Reinvestment.--Replacement Value--We have developed
            an annual investment rate of 1.7 percent of the replacement
            value of the Capitol complex (exclusive of new construction) as
            an order of magnitude guide for capital funding levels. In
            comparison, the fiscal year 2000 request related to existing
            facilities of $102.6 million is above this target due to the
            funding gaps discussed earlier.
        The following table summarizes the funding levels presented in the
    five-year capital budget by category. Again, these categories include
    Life Safety, ADA, Security, Cyclical Maintenance requirements,
    Technology and Management Systems, and infrastructure Improvements.
    These five year projections will be reviewed, modified and updated each
    year as new information becomes available through detailed studies and
    evolving needs and priorities.

                                                                  FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTIONS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year      Five Year
                            Category                               2000            2001            2002            2003            2004            Total
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life Safety.............................................     $16,063,000     $19,910,000      $2,369,000        $800,000        $600,000     $39,742,000
    ADA.....................................................       2,650,000       3,050,000       1,850,000       1,850,000         300,000       9,700,000
    Security................................................       2,550,000      19,312,000       1,850,000      13,550,000         550,000      37,812,000
    Cyclical Maintenance--Improvement.......................      18,870,000      25,059,000       1,950,000       5,575,000       5,350,000      56,804,000
    Cyclical Maintenance....................................      54,319,000      38,437,000      23,664,000      30,324,000      17,336,000     164,080,000
    Technology/Management Systems...........................       9,250,000       3,560,000       2,480,000       2,210,000       1,340,000      18,840,000
    Improvement:
        AOC.................................................       4,400,000      17,026,000       3,894,000       4,150,000       2,100,000      31,570,000
        Client..............................................      10,805,000      23,155,000      28,200,000      56,050,000      13,800,000     132,010,000
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.............................................     118,907,000     149,509,000      66,257,000     114,509,000      41,376,000     490,558,000
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I also wish to point out that this budget was
    prepared with the intent of requesting planning and design funding well
    in advance of large renovation and construction projects such as
    replacing the legislative call system and clocks, upgrading air-
    conditioning--East Front Capitol, replacing high voltage switch gear
    and cables, House Chamber improvements, Senate Garage renovations,
    thermal storage and upgrading the book conveyor system in the Jefferson
    and Adams Buildings. Only design funding is requested for these large
    capital projects in fiscal year 2000 in order to prepare detailed
    designs and firm cost estimates for justifying appropriations requests
    for construction in later years.
        The following table indicates the capital budget increases for
    fiscal year 2000.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal Year      Fiscal Year
              Capital Projects              1999 Budget      2000 Request        Change           Major Projects
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Capitol Buildings: Capital Budget--       $10,745,000      $48,190,000     +$37,455,000  Rehabilitate Dome--
     39 projects.                                                                             $28,000,000; HRMD
                                                                                              Systems Development--
                                                                                              $3,600,000; Financial
                                                                                              Management System--
                                                                                              $3,300,000; Energy
                                                                                              Survey of Capitol
                                                                                              Complex--$2,000,000.
    Capitol Grounds: Capital Budget--5            920,000          615,000         -305,000  ADA Requirements--
     projects.                                                                                $330,000; Renovation
                                                                                              of Former DC
                                                                                              Streetlights--$100,000
                                                                                              .
    Senate Office Buildings: Capital           16,260,000       31,564,000      +15,304,000  Renovate Mechanical,
     Budget--28 projects.                                                                     Telecom & Restrooms,
                                                                                              DSOB--$18,000,000;
                                                                                              Upgrade Russell-
                                                                                              Capitol Subway--
                                                                                              $6,000,000.
    House Office Buildings: Capital            12,024,000       21,782,000       +9,758,000  N/A.
     Budget--26 projects.
    Capitol Power Plant: Capital Budget--       5,645,000        6,757,000       +1,112,000  East Plant Chiller
     10 projects.                                                                             Replacement--$5,000,00
                                                                                              0; Optimization of CPP
                                                                                              Operations--$500,000;
                                                                                              Thermal Storage
                                                                                              Facility--$500,000.
    Library Buildings & Grounds: Capital        3,167,000        9,405,000       +6,238,000  Construct Book Storage
     Budget--25 projects.                                                                     Modules 2,3, & 4 Ft.
                                                                                              Meade--$4,000,000;
                                                                                              Collections Security--
                                                                                              $1,000,000.
    Botanic Garden: Capital Budget--6     ...............          594,000         +594,000  N/A.
     projects.
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.........................       48,761,000      118,907,000     +70,146,0 00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I assure you that I will continue to work closely with you and the
    Committee to review these requests to achieve a rational and adequate
    funding level to support the needs of Congress.
     strategic business planning effort: goals and processes for sensible
                             agency re-engineering
        Clearly one of the greatest changes facing this agency has been to
    respond to the question of how to determine the appropriate resource
    levels necessary to meet our customers' needs. Recognizing that over
    the past seven years this agency has reduced FTE's by over 16 percent,
    we began a thorough re-examination of our agency through a management-
    wide strategic planning process. With the core values defined, and
    focusing on service excellence, we evaluated alternatives to see what
    would be required to fulfill our congressional support role: including
    employing technology and best business practices, and the realignment
    of resources to fulfill our role. A second major aspect of this process
    has been to strengthen lines of clear and open communications between
    this agency and other support agencies as well as key Committees and
    staff. We have begun the implementation of necessary modern and
    efficient business procedures and systems to bring this agency into the
    21st century.
        We have addressed these concerns at every level in this initiative,
    and I would like to describe in some detail the results of our efforts
    thus far. In order to make reasoned and balanced recommendations to
    Congress I initiated a review and evaluation of three basic sources of
    information, each of which is required in order to develop a balanced
    profile of how the agency should be constituted and what policies and
    recommendations should be formulated. The first source of information
    was to speak with every individual within the agency. Soon after I took
    office I met personally with every key manager, and scheduled ``town
    hall'' type of meetings with all other members of the agency. I sought
    to hear what every AOC person thought about the present status of the
    agency and what the future direction of the agency should be. I
    encouraged communication, in private if necessary, on areas where staff
    were aware or suspicious of fraudulent, wasteful or abusive actions,
    and I also encouraged open expression of their views of how the
    agency's policies, procedures and management level respected employee
    rights and promoted a productive and positive workplace.
        The second source of information was through meeting with Senators
    and their staffs to see how well we were performing in terms of
    customer satisfaction. I also opened dialogues with my fellow House and
    Senate officers, including the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the
    Secretary of the Senate, seeking areas where we might together improve
    service delivery, or align our missions and structures more logically
    to eliminate duplicative efforts.
        Finally, the third source of information was to continue obtaining,
    reviewing and analyzing outside impartial resource information. I have
    broadened the scope of our preliminary peer group benchmarking analyses
    to include virtually all maintenance and technical functions. To carry
    out this peer group benchmarking, we embarked on a series of interviews
    with major corporations, building management and trade research
    organizations, and government agencies to see how we compare in terms
    of organizational philosophy, the relative mix of in-house and
    outsourced functions, the use of computerized facility management
    systems, and the types of maintenance and operations standards and
    performance metrics they use. Benchmarking and information gathering
    efforts will continue and be constantly updated.
        I have been reviewing and evaluating our operations, especially as
    they relate to quality service delivery, efficiency and who delivers
    each service. The process has involved a task force composed of the
    Superintendents of the House and Senate Office Buildings, and the
    Capitol Building, as well as the other jurisdictional areas within the
    agency. What I found was that significant re-engineering has already
    occurred throughout many areas of our jurisdiction. Some general
    examples include:
      --Changing tours of duties to accommodate reduced FTE's and still
            respond to Congressional needs
      --A consolidation of shops within both the House and Senate office
            buildings allowed for a reduced number of supervisors
      --Use of Job Order Contracts to perform small renovation projects
            where it is more advantageous to have private sector
            involvement rather than using our in house forces
      --Outsourcing of many areas of technical expertise, using private
            sector contractors for design, estimating, legal and dispute
            resolution services
      --Increased use of private sector vendors for custodial services,
            having contracted out the Ford Building on the House side and
            Webster Hall and Postal Square on the Senate side
      --Use of temporary staff for seasonal, short term, and renovation
            work rather than staffing with long term FTE
        These new processes have been tested and implemented, best business
    practices confirmed with other facility managers, economic savings
    verified, and will be used as models as we continue our evaluations.
        I believe that the final configuration of this agency will maintain
    continuity of services by using a balanced mix of core staff with their
    institutional knowledge, quality assurance and dedication of service,
    as well as a flexible mix of outside vendors, private and public sector
    contractors, and temporary staff to provide cost effective, quality
    service to the Congress.
                                  human factor
        At my request in 1997 the Senate authorized a limited two year buy
    out and early retirement program for the Senate Restaurants. The goal
    was to quickly re-engineer the functions of the Restaurant since the
    operation was losing money. That process was sensitively handled in
    conjunction with OPM, and some 40 employees opted to take early outs
    and buy outs. As a result we were able to re-engineer the Restaurant
    functions and we are now greatly reducing costs. We learned through
    this experience that with proper planning and implementation these are
    effective tools for re-engineering, and in fiscal year 1998 I proposed
    using this program as a model for additional efficiency initiatives.
    Both the House and the Senate agreed to a three year buy out-early out
    authority for selected areas of the agency with approval necessary for
    the initiatives for each of the three years. A plan was prepared and
    presented for the first years re-engineering program utilizing this
    authority. To date we have received approval from the Senate and are
    awaiting the Committee on House Administration's approval.
        As with the Restaurant program, funding for early out and buy out
    packages will be derived from the existing staff's budgeted costs for
    that fiscal year. The following fiscal year would be the point where
    any significant cost savings would begin to accrue as a result of such
    re-engineering.
        This type of program has been successfully used by the Library of
    Congress, the Government Printing Office, and especially by the General
    Accounting Office, which has given us much valuable information on
    their re-engineering efforts. The success already experienced in these
    several areas demonstrates that such programs are a valid way to
    achieve re-engineering and staffing mix adjustments. Significant re-
    engineering must take into account succession planning to retain skills
    and knowledge lost when senior and long term staff leave. Some of that
    succession planning requires retraining existing staff to become multi-
    skilled workers to take on a multitude of tasks. Some retraining is
    also needed to respond to new technologies that are advancing,
    especially in the areas of computer aided facilities management.
                                   conclusion
        The task of completing the assessment of the agency's strengths and
    weaknesses, viewing them from a fresh perspective and striving to
    implement sensible and realistic conclusions is complex, but much
    progress has been made. I will continue with this rigorous examination
    of our services, how they compare with the private sector, and how the
    delivery of those services is viewed by our clients. This is an ongoing
    process.
        In conclusion, with respect to the capital budget, I readily
    acknowledge that the amount requested is large, and understand the
    pressures to achieve a balanced Federal budget in fiscal year 2000. The
    nature of our aging facilities, security and technology improvement
    needs, life safety and other mandated issues, all weigh in favor of
    funding the recommended projects. I know that this Committee and the
    Congress realize, that many of these projects are clearly necessary to
    properly conserve the ``peoples building'' and supporting structures
    for future generations.
        With respect to the operations budget as it relates to our mission
    and services, I am committed to continuing the process of re-
    engineering the agency to develop an organization that will deliver
    efficient and cost effective services in a professional, equitable and
    bicameral manner. I will continue to report periodically on our
    progress as we examine these issues. I believe that we can become more
    effective and more cost-efficient and while fulfilling the core mission
    of the agency. With respect to our dedicated employees, I believe that
    we must be sensitive to their needs and humane as we proceed. The
    Office of the Architect of the Capitol will continue to be professional
    and effective in meeting the challenges ahead.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I shall be pleased to
    respond to any questions that you and the Committee may have.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix A

     Architect of the Capitol Initiatives in Life Safety, Fiscal Year 2000
                            Appropriations Hearings
                                  introduction
        Over the past several years, the agency has undertaken a host of
    life safety initiatives. In the past year, however, due to an
    unprecedented series of small fires within the House office buildings,
    focus has been brought to bear on fire safety programs. Although no
    serious damage or personal injury was caused by the fires, the agency
    undertook a systematic and total review of the fire safety program. The
    agency found a general lack of consistency with the manner in which
    fire safety systems had been planned and carried out in the past.
    Further, maintenance and certification of fire safety systems were
    found to be inadequate. Significant steps have since been taken to
    correct these findings.
                          fire safety program overview
        The agency is in the process of developing and implementing a plan
    that is comprised of (a) restructuring and augmenting a newly
    centralized Life Safety Division to assure more thorough oversight over
    all AOC life safety plans and projects; (b) preparing to install
    upgraded fire protection systems in all the buildings that will
    facilitate appropriate enhancements as they become technologically
    possible, and (c) enhancing training to assure the proper inspection,
    testing and maintenance of installed systems. The potential
    acceleration of full implementation of this plan will require support
    from the House leadership and the House Administration Committee in the
    development of a plan for interim displacement of Members and
    Committees to enable concentrated work in certain areas of the House
    side of the Capitol and the House Office Buildings. The overarching
    goal is to provide the Capitol complex with fire protection systems
    that are state of the art insofar as possible in these historic
    structures.
        The ongoing program is a work in progress and is subject to
    comments, changes and creative input. Progress to date and current
    design initiatives are described to establish a basis of understanding
    of where we are and what remains to be done. The program addresses
    three critical areas--Standards of Operation--Planning, specification
    and internal controls for program development; Projects--Procedures,
    technical support and impact analysis; Maintenance--Inspection, testing
    and maintenance protocols.
                  consultant support for fire safety programs
        In the preparation and presentation of fiscal 1998 and 1999 budget
    requests, life safety projects were placed in their own project
    category, and were given the highest priority. As each project was put
    forth for consideration, the agency established design/build criteria
    to meet current life safety standards while carefully integrating these
    systems into the Capitol complex's historic surroundings. Starting in
    March 1997 the agency procured the services of three firms to provide
    the technical expertise and the much needed resource support required
    within the Life Safety Division to address program requirements.
        In August 1997, the consulting firm of KCCT was hired to study exit
    doors throughout the complex and prescribe a plan of correction to
    permit proper egress in an emergency and facilitate the integrated
    installation of security devices as required by the U. S. Capitol
    Police. This work has included redefining the direction doors swing
    open, replacement of revolving doors, frame modifications to house
    security hardware and redesigning vestibules to accommodate egress
    requirements, all while maintaining a design that is compatible with
    the architectural surroundings.
        At the present time, 40 doors in the Capitol, House and Senate
    Office Buildings have been reconfigured to fully meet life safety
    requirements. Eighteen additional doors are under construction and 23
    more are being designed with construction to begin in a phased manner
    as soon as funds become available. Doors under design include the
    replacement of revolving and monumental doors throughout the Capitol
    complex.
        In October 1997, James Posey Associates was placed under contract
    to provide professional services, material and equipment necessary to
    provide construction documents for sprinkler protection (and other
    services) within the Rayburn House Office Building. The agency is
    currently reviewing design drawings and will be going for bid. This
    project will be tied in with the upgraded alarm system currently being
    installed.
        The firm of Gage-Babcock was placed under contract in September,
    1998, to respond to task orders as listed:
      --General Fire Protection Description of all facilities and complex
            wide fire and emergency management systems; Omega Sprinkler
            recall Count; Building Fire Protection System Survey and
            Descriptions and Design interconnectivity of various life
            safety systems and emergency master control centers
      --Design the replacement for existing fire pumps in the U.S. Capitol,
            Russell Senate Office Building, and Longworth and Cannon House
            Office Buildings.
      --Upgrade fire pump electrical feeds--Ford House Office Building.
      --Emergency signs and lighting and egress study to establish way
            finding and directional/exit signage needs for each building's
            fire protection and life safety and occupancy loads throughout
            the complex.
      --Prepare requirements for a fire alarm system upgrade for ADA
            compliance and identify areas of refuge for each building and
            the requirements to meet National Fire Protection Association
            standards in these areas.
      --Design sprinkler systems for Capitol Power Plant administration
            building.
      --Review and develop emergency operation/emergency preparedness plan
            for each building, using initial work completed by the AOC,
            Sergeants at Arms and U.S. Capitol Police.
      --Provide sprinkler system design for the Longworth carry-out and
            adjacent sundry area.
        At this time the agency has also entered into a Memorandum of
    Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide
    architectural, engineering and construction support services as
    required. The agency will be using their services while commissioning
    life safety systems in the field, after all the software programming
    has been done to the annunciator panels for the alarms and the
    transponders that are attached. The agency will also be using their
    services to execute the Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems
    Statement of Work. The Corps of Engineers, after taking the information
    gathered by Gage-Babcock, will finalize the task order document so that
    these services can be procured to maintain the existing systems
    throughout the complex as well as those systems that are currently
    being installed.
        While these are positive steps to remedy some of our concerns,
    there is much more to be done. Projects need to be completed and/or
    current conditions within existing systems need to be corrected. Many
    timelines to complete projects currently remain extended so as not to
    unduly inconvenience Members, but the agency looks forward to working
    with the oversight committees, the Capitol Police Board, and other
    involved parties to develop methods of accelerating their completion.
    The agency is engaging systems once each zone is fully programmed,
    commissioned and ready to go on-line without affecting the integrity of
    the rest of the system.
                             standards of operation
        In July 1998, the agency moved the Fire Protection Engineering
    Design reporting lines to the Executive Officer. This was done to
    strengthen their role in the organization so that the highest priority
    on such issues will be effectively implemented. With this move, the
    agency's program began to take a more cohesive shape and accelerate.
    The three critical success areas as outlined earlier were defined to
    meet our mission needs, provide the services required from the division
    as well as give the division performance measures for accountability.
    The Standards of Operation created by this program provide the
    specifications for design, materials and installation of systems. It
    answers the questions such as, ``What impact does a change in code have
    on what is installed, what we are planning to install and what is under
    design?'' and, ``What upgrades will it take for us to meet the new
    code; how long would it take; what physical changes are required; and,
    what resource implications are there?'' It creates the commissioning
    plan, the field testing plan as well as the records requirements to
    demonstrate that prescribed procedures were followed. (These are
    currently being formulated for review by senior staff early in
    February.)
        The Standards of Operation are the education portion of the
    program. As of this fiscal year, the Grinnell Fire Protection System
    training program has been offered for initial certification as well as
    a refresher course. Training courses are also being offered to support
    Life Safety programs, the Emergency Preparedness Planning process, etc
    for this fiscal year. This is the first time that such extensive
    training has been offered in this area. As an example, each person
    installing a system will be taught to know the cause and effect of not
    completing an entire zone or not installing all the elements required
    to make a system fully operational and ready to be tested, programmed
    and commissioned rather than waiting to the end of the job.
        The Standards of Operation are also being developed for the
    communication portion of the program. They will provide information on
    changes in technology, changes in codes, etc. and what it may or may
    not mean to the effectiveness of existing systems.
                                  maintenance
        Under the agency's program, there are two types of maintenance
    programs required to have a successful life safety program. Under the
    Standards of Operation, records need be available and information will
    be provided by the Computer Assisted Facility Management (CAFM) system
    once it is fully installed and implemented. Preventive maintenance is
    the key to the longevity of the operating systems throughout the
    complex as well as the life safety systems in place and being installed
    at the present time.
        The agency's program utilizes National Fire Protection Association
    maintenance standards as a tool for the superintendents to schedule the
    necessary maintenance and documentation. In addition, the Life Safety
    Division will be doing inspections of maintenance work being performed
    as well as the relevant record keeping.
        Finally, the agency is working with the other support offices to
    coordinate work areas to keep egress paths clear and safe as part of an
    overall safety maintenance program.
                                    projects
        There continue to be areas in the buildings that are unsprinklered.
    Funding has been requested to design and complete areas in O'Neill, and
    Rayburn House Office Buildings, and James Madison Building. Areas that
    have completed sprinkler designs in the Cannon Building are scheduled
    for completion by the end of this fiscal year. The Rotunda in the
    Cannon Building and large Committee rooms in the Longworth and Cannon
    Buildings require an assessment of today's fire protection technology
    to best meet the size of the space. Funding for areas of the Capitol
    that are currently not sprinklered is being requested in the future;
    alternative locations and methods of suppression must be found so that
    realistic time lines can be established to enable Members to continue
    to function within the building.
        Upgrades to the fire suppression systems for the food service areas
    that address today's cooking oils is requested in fiscal year 2000. A
    study to determine the need to replace the exhaust hoods in the Capitol
    is requested for fiscal year 2000 with the actual work to be
    accomplished in fiscal year 2002 (if required).
        Smoke detectors are being placed in rooms within the Capitol as
    they are being renovated. Unfortunately, to activate the detectors--
    even to the existing alarm system, requires that an entire zone be
    completed. Due to access problems (requiring displacement of Members
    while work is occurring) there is not one completed zone on the House
    side (four of them are three or fewer suites short of a complete zone).
        A project impact analysis report procedure has been developed
    pertaining to the life safety system impacts on renovation/improvement
    projects. This is a newly implemented process, part of the project
    planning portion of our program, and indicates typical areas of
    consideration that will be reviewed with each project involving life
    safety elements. This tool will also be used when systems that support
    life safety are being modified such as water main replacements, room
    partitions installation, and electrical system work.
        It is believed that the work of KCCT and in-house design teams will
    remedy those doors identified as requiring modifications to meet as
    many egress path corrections as possible. (Historic preservation
    considerations are part of the assessment that is being made, and where
    there may be a physical impact on the building the change will be
    implemented to meet the standards while keeping the integrity of the
    building to the degree possible.) Funding is being requested in fiscal
    year 2000 to accomplish the installation and modifications as required.
    Gage-Babcock will be using this information (on door solutions) as well
    as their own campus-wide survey to compile signage requirements for
    exits and wayfinding for egress routes. The actual design of the signs
    will be done by another firm currently under contract with this agency
    for ADA signage needs.
        The agency has assembled a Task Force to address emergency
    preparedness within the complex. Each Superintendent is represented and
    actively participating. The first draft of the manual created with the
    U.S. Capitol Police and the Sergeants at Arms is currently out for
    review and comment to update changes in programs, plans and team
    members. The task assigned to Gage-Babcock, once comments are received
    on this global plan, is to assist each operating unit within the AOC in
    tailoring a manual to their operations.
                                    summary
        To meet the life safety goal set for this agency, alternative work
    processes have been requested to be presented to accelerate the rate of
    life safety system upgrades and implementation. Several major elements
    have been identified as currently impeding this process:
      --Relocation space has not been identified to facilitate temporarily
            moving a group of Members and/or Committees to provide access
            to their suites and meeting rooms. This applies throughout the
            House Office Buildings as well as the Capitol;
      --Design funding needs of a magnitude to be determined must be sought
            to complete all systems--alarms, smoke detectors, sprinklers,
            egress, etc, which needs are currently being addressed;
      --Manpower resources are not available in-house to install,
            commission and maintain systems in an acceptable manner while
            continuing to meet our day-to-day operational requirements.
            External resources and the funds to support them need to be
            provided as requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix B

          Architect of the Capitol Security Update, Fiscal Year 2000
                             Appropriations Request
        The past year was a seminal year for security in the Capitol
    Complex. From the terrorist attacks both domestic and abroad, to the
    tragic deaths of Officers Chestnut and Gibson, to the ever increasing
    threats to our facilities and the Leadership, a heightened awareness
    and emphasis on planning and implementing appropriate security measures
    dominates the focus of the Capitol Police Board, the U.S. Capitol
    Police and the AOC. The AOC concentrated on supporting the efforts of
    the Capitol Police and the other law enforcement entities to improve
    the security within the Capitol Complex.
        The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
    Act, 1999, (Public Law 105-277), provided additional funding in the
    amount of $106 million for the implementation of the proposed security
    improvements. Plans are being developed for the utilization of these
    funds which will be submitted to the appropriate committees for
    approval. Upon approval of the plans, a complete obligation plan, which
    is also being developed, will be submitted to the House and Senate
    Committees on Appropriations for review and approval. In anticipation
    of moving forward with these plans in an expeditious manner, we are
    continuing to work closely with U.S. Capitol Police, Library of
    Congress Police, and even the U.S. Supreme Court Police, to coordinate
    these significant efforts that are unprecedented in the history of the
    Capitol Complex.
        Other proposed short and long term projects include the Capitol
    Visitor Center which is a key component of the systematic modernization
    and strengthening of the integrated security infrastructure program
    which has been presented to the Committee. In that regard, we received
    a substantial portion of the funding to construct the Capitol Visitor
    Center and are preparing to seek approval for the review and validation
    of the existing design and programmatic needs and modify them as
    necessary. The finalization of construction plans and specifications
    would follow after approval is received.
        A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed with the Capitol
    Police that established the division of responsibilities, and the
    processes and procedures to be followed when developing and
    implementing security projects. This memorandum continues to be an
    excellent matrix defining the processes and procedures important to the
    close working relationship between the two organizations.
        Briefly, the MOU assigns the responsibility for design,
    procurement, installation and maintenance of physical security barriers
    and other structures to the Architect of the Capitol while the Capitol
    Police's Physical Security Division is in charge of design,
    procurement, installation of other security systems, including
    intrusion and duress alarms, x-ray, scanning and other security systems
    for facilities. My office continues to provide infrastructure support
    for the implementation of these systems. This has resulted in a strong
    working relationship between the two organizations.
        The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
    Act, 1999 also transferred the responsibility for design, installation,
    and maintenance of security systems to protect the physical security of
    the buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress from the Architect
    of the Capitol to the Capitol Police Board to be carried out under the
    direction of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
    Representatives and Committee on Rules and Administration of the
    Senate. In response to this change an additional MOU that will outline
    the process, procedures and responsibilities for the improved security
    programs of the Library of Congress is in the process of being
    finalizing by this Office, the Capitol Police and the Library of
    Congress. It is anticipate that this MOU will be forwarded to the
    appropriate committees for approval shortly.
        In addition to the planning for the programmatic, personnel and
    physical security needs provided for in the Omnibus Consolidated and
    Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, funding was provided
    in fiscal year 1999 to conduct a comprehensive Master Plan that will
    present the options for providing the current and future facility needs
    of the Capitol Police and the participating law enforcement entities
    operating within the Capitol Complex. These include a new shared
    offsite delivery center where all deliveries to the Capitol Complex can
    be properly screened, a shared training facility that would support the
    collective training requirements of the police, a modern command and
    communications center that is capable of monitoring and administering
    the existing and proposed security systems in a centralized and
    coordinated manner, as well as other support facilities not currently
    or adequately provided. The Master Plan is currently being finalized
    and will be submitted to the appropriate committees for review and
    approval as part of the planning approval process to support the
    development of the proposed new security and police facilities.
        The 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, (Public
    Law 105-174) provided $20 million to improved perimeter security for
    Capitol Square, as well as the streets surrounding the Senate Office
    Buildings. The Capitol Police Board has been directed to develop a
    specific plan for this project. The challenge is to sensitively
    integrate a sophisticated security program into the historic landscape
    of the Capitol Grounds and the fabric of the incomparable complex of
    buildings that grace Capitol Hill. The solution has been strongly
    influenced by the fact that the Capitol is the ``Peoples' Building''
    and visitors must perceive it as such with reasonable access being
    provided. Perimeter fencing and other overly intrusive security
    measures have, therefore, been avoided.
        To meet this challenge, the Board organized a Task Force made up of
    key staff from the Architect's office, the House and Senate Sergeants
    at Arms, the Capitol Police, and nationally recognized architectural
    and security consultants. The Task Force reviewed the previous work
    done by various groups, including the schematic designs developed in
    the late 1980s that became known as the ``Whip's Plan'', and the 1995
    security evaluation requested by the Board and performed by the U.S.
    Secret Service and Capitol Police. The Task Force has completed this
    effort.
        The primary elements of the plan include improved security at all
    entrances to Capitol Square through the use of a combination of high
    impact vehicle barriers that are police activated at the most critical
    locations, or card activated egress from parking related areas. These
    are to be used in conjunction with a continuous string of security
    bollards similar to those designed for and installed at the White
    House. These bollards would replace the concrete planters and sewer
    pipes that had been temporarily put in place in the 1980s. Together
    with new high impact stone planter areas consistent with the Frederick
    Law Olmsted walls and the integration of electronic and other security
    systems at each entrance, a continuously secure perimeter would be
    created largely internal to the original Olmsted walls which, in many
    areas, are too low to meet security height requirements and are not of
    reinforced construction.
        At each of the Capitol Square access points, the incorporation of
    modern electronic and other security systems would be integrated with
    new barrier structures in the form of planters mentioned above and the
    replacement of the existing concrete sewer pipes and planters with
    security bollards of a design consistent with that being deployed at
    other government properties. The end result of the proposed changes
    would be significant improvements to both the security needs and
    appearance of Capitol Square.
        Subsequent to the submittal of this comprehensive plan for improved
    perimeter security for Capitol Square, approval was received by the
    Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and is anticipated by the
    Committee on House Administration.
        The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration also specifically
    approved the Board's plan to improve the physical security elements
    protecting the Senate grounds and office buildings. Although this
    matter relates solely to the Senate, funding is included under our
    ``Perimeter Security'' project in the ``Capitol Grounds'' appropriation
    for this purpose. To resolve the security concerns, the Board
    recommended that landscape elements and bollards similar to those
    recommended for Capitol Square be used to replace the existing
    ``Jersey'' barriers, concrete planters and pipe sections. This solution
    maintains the necessary levels of security while softening the visual
    impact of these measures. The detailed construction plans and
    specifications are currently being completed and construction is
    scheduled to begin this summer.
        The Capitol Police Board approved five security related projects
    that are included in the Architect of the Capitol's request for fiscal
    year 2000. Infrastructure for Security Installations ($500,000), which
    as reduced by $250,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level, provides the
    infrastructure accommodations to support the continued installation by
    the Capitol Police of door controls, alarms, cameras and other security
    devices throughout the Capitol Complex. Security Project Support
    ($550,000) will provide this Office with technical staffing resources
    to coordinate and oversee the design and construction of capital
    improvements to be implemented by this Office that were funded in the
    Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental and Appropriations Act,
    1999. Book Conveyor System Security (Internal LOC Collections)
    ($400,000) will provide for access control of the Library of Congress
    book conveyor system. Collections Security, LOC ($1,000,000) will
    provide for the continued installation of card readers and other
    security sensors and devices to protect the Library's collections.
    Secure Attic and Basement Areas, SOB ($100,000) will provide for the
    construction of physical barriers in various storage areas of the
    Senate.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix C

    Architect of the Capitol AOC Human Resources Act of 1995 Achievements,
                    Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Hearings
                                  introduction
        The Congress passed the AOC Human Resources Act of 1995 in the
    Fiscal Year 1995 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Public Law 103-
    283, approved July 22, 1994. The law required that the AOC develop a
    human resources management program consistent with modern practices
    common to Federal and private sector programs.
                     current human resources program focus
        Since April of 1997, the Human Resources Management Division
    (HRMD), under a new Director, has made the following areas a priority:
    Customer service delivery; program/policy development; service delivery
    systems re-engineering; personnel action and operational processing
    simplification.
        In order to accomplish these priorities as well as the daily human
    resource operational requirements, HRMD has, as a team, formed
    relationships across branches and functions to address these new
    challenges. The following information outlines HRMD's progress so far
    and identifies new directions for the coming year.
    Program Guidance Completed
        The following program guidance was developed, distributed, and
    briefings provided to all Agency Supervisors:
        Training Program.--The training program was significantly
    revitalized and expanded to meet management and employee training
    needs. Specifically, we have:
      --Administered a wide range of training courses for AOC employees at
            all organizational levels and of varied disciplines (copy
            attached).
      --Published a new training guidance handbook which has been provided
            to managers, supervisors and foremen during scheduled
            informational meetings. The handbook addresses the overall
            process for handling training requests and provides the
            following information: a detailed listing of training videos
            that are available for check-out or for viewing in the HRMD
            learning resources center by AOC staff; guidance on staff
            cross-training and job and non-job related training;
            instructions for completing on-site as well as off-site
            training requests; sample curricula and on-the-job training
            suggestions for a wide variety of trade occupations; and a copy
            of the General Services Administration's Facilities Management
            Training Center Catalogue.
      --Implemented an automated training system to capture all training
            activity and funds allocation.
        Hazard Pay/Environmental Differential--Guidance has been developed
    and provided for supervisors to use in requesting hazardous duty pay
    for appropriate work situations. The guidance provides for a number of
    steps to be taken by the supervisor prior to instructing employees to
    work in conditions that may be considered as hazardous duty. The
    guidelines provide for a health and safety review of the proposed
    working conditions, the applicable safety equipment, and other health/
    safety considerations. Once this review is completed, the supervisor
    will follow the procedures outlined to request from HRMD the authority
    to grant hazardous duty pay to employees involved in that specific work
    assignment.
        Temporary Limited Duty Assignments.--Guidance was developed and
    provided for use by supervisors when considering requests from
    employees for limited duty assignments, on a short-term basis, while
    recovering from a non-work related injury or illness. This information
    identifies the initial steps employees must follow and the
    documentation necessary to clearly substantiate a medical limitation.
    With specific medical documentation, the supervisor can make a
    determination whether or not a limited duty assignment is possible
    based on the employee's medical limitations and mission needs.
        Reissuance of Policy on the Administrative Work Week.--Based on
    numerous questions about what constitutes the work week and
    inconsistent application of policies in different segments of the
    agency, we reissued the AOC policy and standardized procedures to all
    employees.
    Programs and Policies That Are Completed And Ready For Union
            Negotiations
        HRMD has completed the following program and policy guidance, which
    is awaiting negotiations with the Union. AFSCME Local 626 was elected
    by AOC employees earlier this year, representing laborer and custodial
    employees. As negotiations are completed for each policy, we will
    implement each of these initiatives. Our work on Program and Policy
    development is carried out in coordination and collaboration with Chief
    Employment Counsel and Chief Labor Relations Counsel. This ensures
    compliance with applicable laws and regulations including provisions of
    the Human Resources Act and the Congressional Accountability Act.
        Architect's Mobility Program (AMP).--With the assistance of a
    workgroup, we have revised the program guidelines. The program is
    designed to provide career growth opportunities for employees in lower-
    graded, career-limiting positions. Anticipate beginning the program
    with 8 to 12 vacancies initially. This is to ensure that we are able to
    provide the necessary one-on-one assistance to the selecting official
    and the selected employee to develop a tailored training development
    plan. Once negotiations are complete we will provide informational
    sessions for employees and supervisors with detailed information about
    the Program, and operating procedures. Specific assistance will be
    given to employees on the application process, on completing the
    necessary forms, etc.
        Temporary Promotion Policy.--Completed the policy and procedures
    for supervisors to follow in proposing temporary promotions for
    employees. The policy provides for a uniform way of proposing,
    documenting, competing when necessary, and approving temporary
    promotions for AOC staff. Through this policy, Agency supervisors will
    be able to make a time-limited change of an employee's assignment, with
    corresponding time-limited increase in pay.
        Work Detail Policy.--Completed the policy and procedures for
    supervisors to follow in proposing details (temporary work assignments)
    for their employees. The policy provides for a uniform way of
    proposing, documenting and approving details for AOC staff. Through
    this policy Agency supervisors will be able to temporarily assign an
    employee to a different position or set of duties, without a change in
    pay. The employee that is temporarily assigned to a different position
    or duties continues to officially occupy his/her position of record.
        Classification Appeals Policy.--Completed development of a
    classification appeal process for employees to use when the
    classification of their position (job title, series and/or grade) is in
    question. The process ensures that a thorough review and analysis of
    the position is completed; a specific report of findings is provided;
    and that HR staff meet to discuss the findings with the employee and
    the supervisor. The policy also provides for a third party (a neutral
    reviewer) to conduct the review in cases where this may be more
    appropriate.
                   additional human resources accomplishments
        Delegations of Authority.--In June 1997, the Human Resources office
    was granted full delegated authority to carry out the wide range of
    personnel actions necessary to support and carry out the mission of the
    Agency.
        Informational Briefings.--The Human Resource staff has been
    conducting informational briefings for groups of supervisors and
    managers in each jurisdiction. The briefings cover temporary limited
    duty assignments, hazardous duty pay/environmental differential,
    updates to the disciplinary process, the Architect's Mobility Program,
    the recently developed Training Handbook and other Human Resource
    program areas. The briefings are one method HRMD is using to develop an
    ongoing, cyclical dialogue with Agency supervisors to assure they
    understand the policies of the Agency and our intent to create
    standardized policies and procedures across all of our jurisdictions.
        Earlyout and Buyout Program for the Senate Restaurants.--Based on
    Congressional authorization, developed program guidance, operating
    procedures, informational materials and facilitated counseling sessions
    to help employees decide if they were interested in applying for a
    buyout and/or earlyout during November/December 1997. The overall
    process, which required about three months of staff effort, resulted in
    23 employees accepting the separation incentive. Through a second
    buyout program, in fiscal year 1998, an additional 17 employees
    accepted a buyout. These efforts have resulted in an estimated saving
    of $1 million per year for the Senate Restaurants.
        In developing the guidance and procedures to administer this
    authority, we benchmarked similar activities at other agencies and
    completed a successful programmatic review conducted by General
    Accounting Office (GAO) staff. Our experience with this authority is
    that it is an effective tool that holds much promise as a component for
    re-engineering other areas of the Agency.
        Enhancing Supervisory Skills Workshop.--With the assistance of a
    training consultant, we developed and administered this workshop for
    all AOC supervisors. The mandatory three-day training session addressed
    numerous topics with a focus on refreshing and enhancing supervisory
    skills. This workshop was the first of what will be a series of
    training opportunities aimed at improving the management and
    supervisory skills of AOC executives, managers, supervisors, foremen
    and assistant foremen. Major components of this workshop included
    segments to: enhance communications with employees; provide basic
    skills and the tools to effectively and promptly address conduct and
    discipline issues; address methods for providing positive reinforcement
    to staff; and, allowed an open discussion and review of pressing
    problems/issues.
        Streamlining the Discipline Process.--In an effort to improve the
    timely and fair handling of disciplinary cases, we examined AOC's
    current process and procedure to identify areas where processing time
    for these actions could be reduced, without changing the existing
    policy. A number of areas were identified where supervisors, HRMD, and
    the Hearing Officers could be more time efficient. To help reduce the
    time it takes to resolve a disciplinary case, we developed processing
    time standards. A decision was also made to obtain the services of
    independent contractors, skilled in handling hearings, to assume the
    duties that have been carried out by AOC managers. In doing this, we
    have added an additional degree of independent objectivity and
    consistency to the review of cases in addition to improving overall
    timeliness of handling a disciplinary action.
        Contract Administration Training Initiative.--In collaboration with
    the Procurement Division, HRMD led an initiative to promote the
    training of contract project officers. A comprehensive program plan and
    schedule was developed to facilitate a contract project officer and a
    contract administration course. The first phase of this training
    program is underway. This initiative will enable the agency to more
    efficiently and professionally handle the administration of contracts
    for services that will be performed for AOC.
        Position Management Review.--In coordination with the Budget
    Office, HRMD implemented an Agency-wide process that ensures completion
    of a budget analysis and a position management review prior to a
    position being approved for recruitment. The position management
    review, completed by this office, focuses on: the need for the
    position; duplication of effort or overlapping of functions; the
    appropriate supervisory span of control; and staffing alternatives to
    ensure the position is filled at the lowest possible grade (salary)
    level.
        Position Classification Studies.--Efforts in this area have
    resulted in:
      --Completion of a number of position classification review studies
            including: raising the career ladder to the GS-13 level for
            Architect positions in the Architectural Division; developing
            GS-13 program manager positions in Engineering; developing GS-
            13 level positions in the Information Management Division.
      --Completion of a preliminary review of a random sample of Laborer
            positions in the House, Capitol and Senate Office Buildings.
            The review was completed in response to employee complaints
            that their positions should be paid at a higher level. We found
            that the majority of the positions were either properly graded
            or were over graded. A broader study will be necessary to
            better address this issue.
        A review of all the positions in the Botanic Gardens is currently
    underway to determine the proper titles, series and grades of these
    positions.
        Organizational Studies.--An organizational management review was
    completed for the Superintendent of the Capitol, resulting in a
    reorganization with consolidation of a number of shops. An
    organizational realignment, to consolidate the grounds staffs at the
    Supreme Court and the Library of Congress under the AOC Landscape
    Architect, was also completed. Currently, we are working with the
    Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings, the Director of
    Engineering, and the Immediate Office of the Architect on a number of
    organizational issues.
        These efforts are part of our Strategic Planning and Organization
    Management efforts to develop sound, efficient, cost-effective staffing
    patterns for the Agency. This work will result in streamlined
    organizations with appropriate supervisor-to-employee staffing ratios.
    We also assess options that will facilitate the identification and
    development of centralized operations, and opportunities for multi-
    tasked job assignments and upward mobility positions.
        AOC Electronic Job Announcements.--A procedure to ``post'' all AOC
    job vacancies on the Office of Personnel Management Job Information
    Home Page (www.usajobs.opm.gov) was developed and implemented. AOC
    vacancies can now be found by any interested applicant ``surfing'' the
    net. In addition, to foster increased opportunities for all AOC staff,
    we implemented a policy of advertising jobs Agency-wide. This replaced
    the existing practice of advertising jobs primarily at the jurisdiction
    level. This will not only provide more opportunities for current AOC
    staff, but ensures consideration of a broader pool of candidates.
    Should we anticipate that there would not be a broad cross section of
    available internal candidates, the vacancies would be advertised to all
    sources (both within the AOC and to outside sources). Our goal is to
    ensure that vacancies are filled using a fair and open competitive
    procedure.
        Human Resources Newsletter.--Developed and have been publishing a
    monthly Human Resources Newsletter, Employee Matters as part of the AOC
    Shoptalk. The newsletter provides AOC employees with current Human
    Resource information, program initiatives, upcoming events, training
    information, etc.
        Human Resources Web HomePage--A new resource for AOC employees who
    have access to the AOC intranet has been developed. Employees can now
    find out about Human Resources-related information and policies on-
    line. Since this is just the beginning of our venture into the website
    design, we will continue to modify and enhance the HomePage based on
    feedback. Currently, the HomePage contains: Employee-wide notices
    issued by HRMD; A complete HR staff roster with contact numbers and
    service areas; The Uniform Policy and related documents; Issues of
    Employee Matters; Links to other sites such as TSP, Social Security and
    Federal Job Opportunities including AOC jobs A feedback link to E-Mail
    a message to HRMD-Link.
        In the near future, the site will be expanded to include: Every
    current AOC human resources policy; Mission-related information about
    HRMD and its branches, including each of the services and programs we
    provide.
                      human resources initiatives underway
        This is a brief summary of additional HRMD initiatives underway:
        CSRS to FERS Conversion.--AOC had over 900 employees who are
    eligible to convert from CSRS to the FERS Retirement System during the
    open season that continues through December 31, 1998. We had a
    comprehensive strategy in place to inform eligible employees of the
    process, considerations, financial implications, etc. HRMD provided
    one-on-one counseling and retirement comparisons to any interested
    employee who considered making the change. In addition, 79 employees
    participated in either FERS Transfer briefings and/or individual
    retirement transfer counseling sessions provided by HRMD.
        Awards Program.--An awards policy/program to establish a
    comprehensive incentives and recognition program, including provisions
    to pilot monetary and time off awards is being developed. Providing an
    incentive system, that recognizes performance, productivity and
    exceptional employee contributions toward fulfilling our mission, will
    serve to reinforce service excellence, professionalism, creativity, and
    teamwork AOC-wide.
        Performance Evaluation System (PES).--A plan has been developed to
    review and make necessary program and policy changes to revamp the AOC
    PES. Focus groups comprised of supervisors, foremen, employees and
    managers will be conducted to assist us in the initial phase of the
    review. A workgroup of AOC staff will be used to help develop proposals
    for necessary changes to revamp the system.
        Human Resources Process/Systems Re-engineering.--In the same
    fashion that the discipline process was streamlined to reduce
    processing time, we are systematically reviewing and revamping other HR
    processes and procedures so they are more responsive to management and
    employee needs. Even though this requires us to make a large investment
    of time, addressing these initiatives and the business of modernizing
    AOC's Human Resources programs are being approached with a great degree
    of enthusiasm by the HRMD staff. Our current focus is the re-
    engineering of the operating processes and procedures followed by the
    Employment and Services Branch. Staff workgroups will systematically
    analyze, modernize, simplify and implement new ways of doing business
    in a number of areas including: recruitment, pay and benefits
    processing, retirement counseling and program administration, health
    and life benefits administration, etc.
        Labor Management Relations and Negotiations.--With the election of
    a union to represent approximately one-third of the Agency's workforce,
    HRMD now has additional program responsibilities to carry out in
    collaboration with the Labor Relations Attorney. HRMD is working with a
    wide variety and a significant number of day-to-day union issues as
    well as serving on the management negotiation team. They regularly
    participate in meetings with union officials to address specific issues
    or concerns and to provide information. The staff will be devoting a
    considerable amount of time to carry out negotiations with the union on
    a labor-management contract, as well as on specific policy issues.
        Forging New Business Relationships.--HRMD has been working with
    several organizations across the campus: The Capitol Police to
    establish joint efforts to successfully and safely deal with potential
    workplace issues; The Attending Physician's Office and the Occupational
    Health and Safety staff to develop better program linkages with regard
    to workers compensation, training and other program areas; and
    Participating in initial discussions with the Sergeant at Arms and the
    Chief Administrative Officer on potential areas for mutual cooperation.
        The staff is actively participating on several executive agency
    forums: a member of the Small and Independent Federal Agencies
    Personnel Group; a member of the Office of Personnel Management's Human
    Resource Accountability Workgroup; participate in the Classification
    and Compensation Society forums; and are actively involved in the
    Federal Safety and Health Council.
                      upcoming human resources initiatives
        This is a brief summary of additional HRMD initiatives on the
    horizon:
        Leave Administration.--Guidance and instructions being used by the
    various jurisdictions are being collected in an effort to assess how
    leave is administered across the AOC. We want to look at options for
    developing more standard policies and procedures for handling the
    various aspects of leave administration including: Process for
    requesting and approving leave (annual, sick, without pay, etc.);
    Process for annotating and documenting tardiness; Process for
    annotating, documenting and initiating action to address AWOL
    situations.
        Records Management--HRMD is reviewing the information AOC
    organizations currently maintain about the employment and conduct of
    individual employees with the goal of developing guidelines to
    standardize these practices. Individual supervisors and managers may
    find it convenient to maintain unofficial personnel records containing
    information about their employees for purposes of initiating personnel
    actions, tracking leave usage, and recommending discipline. The
    information maintained might duplicate some of that in the employee's
    Official Personnel Folder, but may include copies of additional
    material such as employee's counseling, incident reports, and
    supervisory notes. In order to provide consistency in the content and
    manner in which employee information is kept, HRMD will develop
    guidelines to govern what documentation may and may not be maintained,
    as well as general information on the employee's right to review it.
        Update and Revamp the AOC Conduct and Discipline Policy.--The AOC
    operating process and procedures for handling conduct and discipline
    matters will be reviewed and updated. The existing process is rather
    cumbersome and can be very time intensive. The necessary procedural
    steps in administering the disciplinary process will be streamlined.
        A Comprehensive Wage and Pay Administration and Hours of Duty
    Policy.--HRMD will look into developing a more uniform, comprehensive,
    way of addressing wage and pay matters to cover holiday pay, overtime,
    tours of duty, etc. This effort will standardize pay administration and
    work scheduling across the Agency and provide clear operating
    guidelines for AOC supervisors to follow.
        Workers' Compensation Program.--HRMD has initiated a concerted
    effort to develop a comprehensive program to address the high workers'
    compensation costs being incurred by the Agency. Our goal is to address
    injuries, case management, and work with the Department of Labor on a
    very proactive basis. We will develop specific initiatives, in
    conjunction with the AOC Health and Safety Office and with the
    Attending Physician's Office, to systematically address each aspect of
    workers' compensation, to provide for a return to work program and to
    aggressively pursue cases of potential fraudulent claims.
        Employee Safety and Protection.--In collaboration with the AOC
    Health and Safety Office, HRMD will continue to address employee safety
    and protection in the workplace. We have already drafted and
    implemented (with union concurrence) an employee uniform policy to
    cover employees currently authorized to use them. We need to address
    other employee personal protection issues such as protective clothing,
    eye protection, safety shoes, etc., to further support AOC health,
    safety, and training initiatives.
        Human Resources Management Information System.--Based on program
    and management needs, research is needed to actively pursue
    modernization of HR information management systems. The lack of an
    automated system results in very labor intensive efforts on behalf of
    Agency managers, administrative staff, the HR staff, and the
    Information Resources Management staff in completing day-to-day
    business transactions. An automated system would not only greatly
    reduce the necessary paperwork, but would also reduce the processing
    time for personnel actions and would facilitate generation of necessary
    Agency and Oversight Committees' reports. Such a system would be able
    to provide for: on-demand, accurate, management reports for program
    analysis; processing of personnel actions; personnel forms; position
    classification process; simple, protected, employee access to their
    personal pay, benefits, retirement, insurance, and other employment
    related information.
        Human Resources Process/Systems Re-engineering.--The staff will
    continue to re-engineer, streamline and revamp our operating processes
    and procedures with the goals of reducing processing time and providing
    more responsive customer services. Following the model we used in the
    conduct and discipline process (previously addressed in this report),
    we will complete a process to streamline and re-engineer operating
    processes and procedures in the Employment and Services Branch and then
    replicate the model in the Classification and Pay Administration
    Branch, the Management and Employee Relations Branch, and the Employee
    Development and Communications Branch.
        Our bottom line is to be more responsive in meeting the needs of
    our AOC customers, and provide timely, cost-effective HR services. We
    envision the Human Resources as a proactive partner and resource in
    advancing the AOC mission of being an innovative and efficient team
    dedicated to service excellence and to preserving, maintaining and
    enhancing the national treasures entrusted to our care.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix D

       Architect of the Capitol Initiatives Regarding the Congressional
          Accountability Act, Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Hearings
                                  introduction
        Enacted in 1996, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the
    CAA) affords all AOC employees a means by which to present allegations
    regarding employment practices in an independent office in the
    legislative branch.
                          employment complaint process
        An employee who wishes to allege violations of the CAA may request
    counseling and mediation from the Office of Compliance. Individuals who
    wish to file such requests need not put in writing, or prove, any
    allegations during formal counseling, mediation or before entering the
    formal litigation process. At mediations the Agency may be asked to
    respond to any employment-related matters, including discrimination,
    wage and hour and family leave issues, or other workplace issues. The
    CAA and the Office of Compliance procedural rules require that all
    mediation and formal hearing proceedings remain strictly confidential
    and requires parties to sign agreements to that effect.
        If mediation does not satisfy an individual, he or she, or a
    designated representative, may initiate the litigation process by
    filing a formal complaint in the Office of Compliance or a civil action
    in Federal Court. (The Office of Compliance has ordered that Formal
    Complaint cases be kept strictly confidential.)
                                case statistics
        The Office of Compliance (OC) official figures are not yet
    available for Calendar Year 1998. Based on the OC reports for 1997, the
    first full year that the law was in effect, individuals filed 77
    requests for counseling naming the AOC as the employing office. In
    Calendar Year 1996, the number of requests for counseling naming the
    AOC as the employing office was 34. (The filing of such requests is a
    pre-requisite to filing a Request for Mediation upon which the OC first
    informs the AOC of the existence of a complaint from an employee.)
        accountability act and occupational safety and health provisions
        Section 215 of the CAA directs the Office of Compliance General
    Counsel, periodically and on request, to inspect any area or activity
    within the jurisdiction of employing offices, including all of the
    buildings within the Agency's jurisdiction with respect to compliance
    with occupational safety and health standards. (As of January 1998, the
    Library of Congress is also separately covered by the these
    provisions.) The OC General Counsel conducts inspections of all such
    locations at least once every Congress, but also on the request of an
    employee or an employing office.
        Beginning in 1997 and ending in 1998, the OC General Counsel
    conducted periodic inspections of all AOC locations. These inspections
    began in July 1997 and extended through June 1998. Also, the OC General
    Counsel conducted about 30 inspections of AOC facilities, based on a
    request by union officials or AOC employees. The Agency has been fully
    cooperative in this inspection process and has responded to the issues
    raised. The OC General Counsel issued citations on two occasions: on
    March 25, 1998, six (6) citations issued covering the storage of
    flammable substances throughout Capitol complex and two (2) concerning
    the trash sorting/recycling activities in the House Office Buildings.
    The Agency did not contest these citations and the conditions were
    immediately abated.
        In August 1998 the OC General Counsel raised concerns about the
    possible presence of legionella bacteria in certain locations within
    the West Cooling Tower of the Capitol Power Plant. AOC officials acted
    swiftly to ensure that employees at the plant were not adversely
    affected and that the conditions in the tower are regularly monitored.
    With the assistance of national experts in cooling tower operations and
    of the Attending Physician regarding employee health issues, AOC
    devised a plan that assured that no outbreak would occur. [Currently,
    the West Cooling Tower, during its scheduled shutdown for cleaning and
    maintenance, is also undergoing certain recommended structural changes
    to avoid any similar concerns in the future.]
        Pursuant to a request for inspection filed in April 1998 by an AOC
    employee collective bargaining agent, the Office of Compliance has
    conducted inspections to ensure the availability of emergency fire
    exits throughout the day and night in all of the buildings in the
    Capitol Complex. The Agency has accelerated its efforts to modify all
    the doors to address this concern.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix E

      Architect of the Capitol Initiatives in Labor-Management Relations,
                    Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Hearings
                                  introduction
        Provisions under the Congressional Accountability Act, Public Law
    104-1, gave AOC employees the right to join collective bargaining
    units. Since the Accountability Act's passage, three different groups
    of AOC employees have exercised this right. The following discussion
    describes labor--management relations activities that have taken place
    over the past two years.
                              formation of unions
        In August, 1997, the first bargaining unit at the Architect of the
    Capitol (AOC) was established. Approximately 600 laborers, custodians
    and other occupations were organized by AFSCME Council 26. Local 626
    was established as the bargaining agent for these employees.
        In November, 1998, AFSCME Council 26, Local 626 was certified as
    the exclusive representative of a production and maintenance unit at
    the United States Botanic Garden.
        On January 13, 1999, Plumbers Local Union No. 5, United Association
    of Journeyman and Apprentices et al. was certified as the exclusive
    bargaining agent, by the Office of Compliance, for a unit of plumbers
    employed by the AOC's Construction Management Division.
                               union negotiations
        The AOC and AFSCME Local 626 have completed negotiations on the
    following subjects: Uniforms for Senate Office Buildings and Capitol
    Building employees; Time Clocks for Capitol building employees;
    Official time and the Number of Designated Union Officials * \1\; Dues
    deduction; Architect's Mobility Program * \1\ and Ground Rules for
    Master Contract Negotiations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Tentative agreements have been reached on these items.
    Memoranda of Understanding negotiated between the AOC and AFSCME will
    become effective subject to ratification by AFSCME and final approval
    by the Architect.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           labor--relations meetings
        At least 15 labor-management meetings have been held during the
    past year to discuss various issues, including staffing, time and
    attendance, training opportunities, change in work assignments,
    discipline, health and safety.
        Two receptions were hosted by the Architect for Local 626 elected
    officers, stewards and representatives in 1998.
                     allegations of unfair labor practices
        Eight unfair labor practice charges were filed by AFSCME Local 626
    during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to date. Four were withdrawn, one was
    dismissed, settlement discussions are continuing on two other cases,
    and a most recently-filed charge is under investigation by the Office
    of Compliance.
                        collective bargaining agreements
        Presently, there is no collective bargaining agreement covering any
    AOC employees. Bargaining for a Master Agreement with AFSCME, for both
    of the units that it represents, will not commence until all
    negotiability issues are resolved, either formally or informally.
        Proposals and counter-proposals will be exchanged within 15 days
    following a final determination or resolution of the negotiability
    issues.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix F

       Architect of the Capitol Reengineering Plan Including Buyout and
          Earlyout Programs, Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Hearings
                                  introduction
        The AOC's goal is ``To be an innovative and efficient team
    dedicated to service excellence and to preserving, maintaining, and
    enhancing the national treasures entrusted to our care.'' As such, the
    AOC embarked on a strategic goal of rebuilding the Agency into a
    flexible, responsive, and quality oriented instrument of the Congress
    through reengineering. The AOC requested buyout and early out authority
    to increase management's flexibility for reengineering the Agency. This
    authority was provided in Sec. 308 of the Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-275, dated October 21, 1998.
                             reengineering program
        The AOC's reengineering program is designed as a cross-
    jurisdictional, multi-dimensional effort. Through this program the AOC
    will: reshape its business approach through reengineering and increased
    use of automation; create cost effective programs and services using a
    multi-skilled workforce; consolidate programs and services with the
    deployment of staff across campus; and provide for timely succession
    planning.
        During fiscal year 1998, the general plan was presented to the
    Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and the Committee
    on House Oversight of the House of Representatives, as well as both
    Legislative Branch Subcommittees for Appropriations. The proposed
    Implementation Plan to reshape the Agency, as presented, will: Develop
    a mix of staff skills to meet mission needs; Cross-train current staff
    to be multi-skilled; Align and consolidate functional activities and
    programs to build efficiency and minimize redundant services.
        The use of buyout/earlyout authority was requested to stimulate
    turnover and NOT downsizing, thus providing a managed restructuring
    process. The Agency requested a three year process so as to manage the
    rate of turnover to ensure that the Agency could maintain customer
    service levels and fill critical needs.
        Based on work completed by the superintendents and other senior
    staff, the Agency identified the occupations and program areas for the
    first year of reengineering which: Have minimal interaction with
    congressional operations; have no security concerns; have easily
    defined tasks and duties; and have been evaluated against potential
    impact on the integrity of structural, electrical and mechanical
    systems.
                        authority for buyouts/earlyouts
        Section 308 of Public Law 105-275 authorizes The Architect of the
    Capitol to administer a three year voluntary separation incentive
    (buyout) program and voluntary early retirement (earlyout) program
    within the Agency. This authority does not include employees of the
    U.S. Senate Restaurants. The justification for this program is to
    facilitate reengineering and reinvesting in the Agency to meet both
    mission requirements and fiduciary responsibility. Prior to each annual
    buyout/earlyout program, the Architect must submit the Agency
    Reengineering Plan to the Committee on Rules and Administration of the
    Senate and the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
    Representatives for approval. The plan shall include the positions and
    functions to be reduced or eliminated, identified by organizational
    unit, occupational category, and pay or grade level; the number and
    amounts of voluntary separation incentive payments to be offered; and a
    description of how the Agency will operate without the eliminated
    positions and functions.
                                    approach
        In preparation for implementing a reengineering effort which would
    utilize buyout authority to facilitate turnover, the AOC has taken the
    following steps: Benchmarked with technical experts (Building Owners
    Management Assoc., Office of Personnel Management, facility management
    experts such as GSA, Coca Cola, and several universities, GAO, etc.);
    Consulted with Arthur Andersen Consulting, Inc.; Reaffirmed operational
    selection criteria with Superintendents; Performed risk assessment for
    operational areas--task activity based; Determined the commercial
    availability of services and support; Planned next steps, including
    required organizational and operational support.
        To achieve the desired reengineering goal over the next three
    years, AOC's Year 1 approach for buyout and early retirement provisions
    ensures that the Agency, with in-house staff, will continue to perform
    duties that have direct impact on the integrity of structural,
    mechanical, and electrical facilities; and continue to perform critical
    services as defined by Members of Congress. This program is designed to
    assure that all AOC services are continued without interruption or
    diminution over the period.
                            key elements of the plan
        The maximum payout for a buyout will be $25,000. The cost of the
    buyouts will be paid from the salary savings realized through the
    employees' departure from the AOC payroll.
        The AOC will reinvest savings realized through this program into
    Agency operations and projects as well as in procuring services through
    outside vendors as appropriate.
        The Agency will reengineer positions that are vacated through this
    effort to provide for a complement of multi-skilled staff; positions
    that are restructured by filling at lower grade levels; and positions
    that will be used for the Architect's Mobility Program.
        Program and work process consolidation will be a part of this
    effort to ensure that economies and better efficiencies are realized.
        Union negotiations will need to be completed prior to
    implementation of the plan as it affects bargaining unit employees. The
    outcome of negotiations may affect the projections made in the plan.
        The proposed announcement to employees, of the buyout opportunity,
    must be made as soon as possible to realize the maximum possible
    savings.
                      determination of occupational groups
        The Superintendents of each jurisdiction, along with other senior
    staff, completed organizational reviews that resulted in the
    identification of occupational groups that provide the best
    opportunities for AOC-wide reengineering.
              jurisdiction categories for buyout/earlyout program
        Cross-jurisdictional tasks were analyzed for their potential to
    incorporate best business practices and to provide more cost effective
    programs and services. In addition, the Agency focused on the
    occupational groups that provided opportunities for:
      --Multi-skilled Staff.--Identified opportunities within the
            occupational groups to introduce a multi-skilled workforce.
            Sample position descriptions, vacancy announcements, and
            training be used in staffing a multi-skilled workforce have
            been developed and are ready for implementation.
      --Position Restructuring.--Identified potential cost savings by
            restructuring the work assignments of journeyman-level
            positions to ensure that work which could more appropriately be
            performed by lower-graded staff is not a part of the day-to-day
            assignments for journeyman-level staff.
      --Architect's Mobility Program.--Developed a program to provide
            opportunities for career limiting positions. The Program,
            currently being negotiated with the union, will be used to
            retool positions identified within the jurisdictions. In
            addition, it will also serve as a tool for Agency succession
            planning in future years.
        The Reengineering Plan, using buyouts and earlyouts, will result in
    savings from eliminated positions and also provides additional savings
    and flexibilities through realigning and restructuring the Agency's
    organizations and its workforce.
      --Projected Reengineered Positions.--Positions were identified for
            restructuring as multi-skilled jobs. Positions are projected
            for use in the Architect's Mobility Program, and positions will
            be retooled and reclassified (positions restructured to carry
            out work at a lower grade level). The projected savings will be
            reinvested for Agency operational support needs.
      --Program Consolidation--Work Process Consolidation is also a part of
            these reengineering efforts. Examples of efforts in this area
            include: consolidation of the U.S. Capitol House HVAC shop and
            the U.S. Capitol Senate HVAC shop, which reduced the number of
            supervisors through attrition; alignment of preventive
            maintenance functions with evening staffing requirements in the
            House and Senate; and consolidation of all landscaping and
            ground maintenance functions for the Supreme Court and the
            Library of Congress under the Agency's Landscape Architect.
      --Succession Planning.--The review of vacated positions to ensure
            that AOC's future workforce embodies the knowledge and talents
            to carry on the reengineering goals identified in the plan.
                         buyout program administration
    Year 1 Buyout/Earlyout Occupational Groups/Program Areas
        Year 1 buyouts/earlyouts opportunities apply to positions that have
    been identified in individual jurisdictional plans. Due to mission/
    program needs as specified by the Superintendents in the organizational
    analysis activity, some jurisdictions may not be offering buyouts in
    some of the occupations/program areas identified in the Year 1
    Reengineering Plan. Buyouts/earlyouts in subsequent years will be for
    different occupational groups/program areas.
    Communications
        In order to effectively communicate buyout/earlyout information to
    AOC employees, the AOC will use a variety of written informational
    tools and in-person communications. Written communication tools will be
    used to convey the buyout/earlyout material (number and types of
    positions included in Year 1 plan, the application process, the
    timeframe for application and separation, etc.) Employees will have
    access to the information via memoranda, the employee newsletter, and
    the AOC intranet. Supervisors will also be provided guidance material
    to assist in information dissemination.
        A number of general employee briefings are planned to personally
    explain the application and selection process, the Federal retirement
    programs, leave and employee benefits considerations, etc. Individual
    retirement and separation counseling sessions will be provided by a
    retirement counselor to include retirement and benefits calculations
    and information.
        An informational hot-line will be used to provide general overview
    information and will provide the opportunity for employees to speak
    with a human resources advisor regarding a specific topic or question.
    Labor Management Considerations
        Buyout and earlyout options will be offered to some members of the
    AOC bargaining unit. The Agency will submit the proposed AOC
    Reengineering Plan to the union to satisfy legally required union
    negotiations as to impact and implementation. The Agency's interest is
    to implement and effect the buyout/earlyout process, so as to allow
    employees to separate in the second quarter of the fiscal year, in
    order to realize the maximum possible savings and pay for the buyouts.
    While the Agency anticipates that the union shares a common interest in
    making buyouts/earlyouts available to bargaining unit employees, the
    timing and implementation of the process, for bargaining unit
    employees, will be contingent on completion of any required union
    negotiations. The outcome of negotiations may affect the projections
    included in this plan as to bargaining unit positions.
    Process Information
        Eligibility.--Employees who agree to separate from the Agency
    through regular retirement, early retirement, or resignation are
    eligible to apply for a buyout if: they are a permanent AOC employee;
    they have continuously worked for the Federal government for the past
    12 months; and their current job classification and title is the same
    as the type of job category identified for the Year 1 buyout/earlyout
    program. Employees are not eligible to apply for a buyout if: they are
    a reemployed annuitant; they are a temporary employee (appointment pay
    plan designated as GG, or Davis Bacon (DB); they have previously
    received a buyout; they are or would be eligible for disability
    retirement; or they are employees of the U.S. Senate Restaurants.
        Application Package. Buyout/Earlyout Applications will be submitted
    to the Human Resources Management Division (HRMD) identifying the
    proposed type of separation, separation date, and appropriate employee
    information. The application will be included in the AOC Buyout/
    Earlyout Application Package.
        Verification. HRMD will verify that the applicant: (1) is eligible
    for a buyout, (2) is ineligible for disability retirement, (3) is
    eligible for the type of separation indicated on the proposed
    separation date (regular retirement, earlyout, or resignation after at
    least 12 months of continuous service, (4) has been counseled by a
    Human Resources Advisor, (5) and any other provision negotiated with
    the union representing the bargaining unit to which the employee
    belongs.
        Selection. Since more applications for buyouts may be received for
    some of the occupations than the number of buyouts available, the
    Agency will use fair and objective criteria for deciding which
    applications will be approved. In this circumstance, the AOC will use
    employees' total length of Federal service as selection the criterion.
    Should a tie result in length of Federal service, AOC length of service
    will be used to break the tie.
        Payment. The amount of the buyout will be $25,000 or the amount of
    severance pay due on the date of separation, whichever is less. Payment
    is made in a lump sum, after deductions for Federal, state and local,
    and Medicare/FICA taxes, after the employee leaves the Agency. Buyout
    payments are also subject to garnishment for alimony, child support, or
    other debts. In addition, payment will be made to the Civil Service
    Retirement and Disability Fund in the amount of 15 percent of the final
    basic pay of each employee who is paid a buyout (as identified in
    Public Law 105-275).
        Separation. Employees selected for a buyout must separate through
    regular retirement, early retirement, or resignation during the buyout
    window.
        Delayed Separation. Superintendents of each jurisdiction may
    request the approval of the Architect to retain an employee, who has
    been selected to receive a buyout, until a specific separation date
    later than the separation date identified in the buyout window (but no
    later than June 30, 1999). The written request to the Director, Human
    Resources must indicate the way in which these employees' services are
    critical to the performance of the Agency's mission, certify that
    without the employees' services, the organization could not perform
    critical duties that have direct impact on the integrity of structural,
    mechanical, and electrical facilities; and/or could not perform
    critical services for the Congress.
        Restriction on Reemployment. Employees who accept a buyout may not
    be reemployed by the Federal government for a period a five years,
    including employment under a personal services contract. If reemployed
    within five years, employees must repay the entire buyout payment to
    the AOC. (Only under extreme circumstances may this provision be
    waived.)
    Report Generation
        HRMD will provide each jurisdiction appropriate information to
    accurately track progress towards stated jurisdiction plans so that
    senior leadership is apprised of program progress.
                                 annual report
        Following each buyout/earlyout, the AOC will compile an annual
    report to compare the actual results with the planned results. The
    Agency will forward the report to the House of Representatives
    Committees on House Oversight and Appropriations and the Senate
    Committees on Rules and Administration and Appropriations.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix G

        Architect of the Capitol Status of Selected Capital Improvement
               Projects, Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Hearings
    Dome Rehabilitation
        The 130-year-old Capitol dome is undergoing a rehabilitation to
    ensure its structural integrity as well as its protection and
    preservation into the next century. Construction phasing was determined
    early in 1998; several studies and pilot projects and an interim master
    plan associated with the first phase were also completed, paving the
    way for the preparation of construction documents and the issuance of
    an Invitation for Bid. The phase one construction contract was awarded
    to The Aulson Company of Methuen, Massachusetts, on January 11, 1999,
    and the work will proceed while the staff and consulting team continues
    with additional studies and the production of design documents in
    preparation for phase two of the construction that is anticipated to be
    awarded mid-year 2000. The entire project is scheduled to be completed
    in the second quarter of calendar 2003.
    U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory Renovation
        The contract for the renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden
    Conservatory was awarded to The Clark Construction Group, Inc., of
    Bethesda, Maryland, in September 1998. The company was issued a Notice
    to Proceed in the same month and extensive work presently underway is
    clearly visible to passersby. The renovation and reconstruction of the
    1933 Conservatory will totally replace and modernize its building
    systems while retaining its architectural character. The initial award
    is for the base renovation of the structure (including the interior
    landscapes) and installation of water treatment, security and
    environmental control systems. During 1999, the Architect may choose to
    award additional projects that are included in the contract as options
    if additional funds become available. The work is to be completed no
    later than September 5, 2000. Immediately thereafter, the staff of the
    U.S. Botanic Garden will install the plant exhibits in each house of
    the Conservatory.
    Rayburn House Office Building Sprinkler Protection and
            Telecommunication Improvements
        This project is intended to provide a sprinkler fire protection
    system for those areas of the building not presently covered (to
    supplement the existing fire protection system), a new
    telecommunication cable tray system to facilitate the installation of
    new telecommunications cabling systems throughout the building, and
    replacement of one emergency generator to support a new fire pump and
    other critical equipment in the Rayburn House Office Building. The
    Architect of the Capitol received 100 percent contract document
    drawings and specifications on January 27, 1999. The 100 percent Cost
    Estimate was received on January 29, 1999. Within the next two weeks,
    this office will review, make comments and send the comments to the
    consultant, James Posey Associates. The final submission is expected to
    be delivered to AOC by the end of February 1999. The project should be
    bid this spring and awarded this summer. It is anticipated that
    construction will take about three years.
    Chiller Replacement in the East Refrigeration Plant, Capitol Power
            Plant
        The existing chillers in the East Refrigeration Plant are over
    forty years old and utilize CFC-based refrigerants which are no longer
    manufactured while the replacement chillers will be considerably more
    efficient and will utilize an environmentally friendly refrigerant. A
    Commerce Business Daily announcement seeking consulting firms
    interested in performing the design for this project was issued last
    summer with proposals received from numerous highly qualified firms in
    the fall. Interviews for the final selection of a consultant should
    occur in February 1999 with award of a contract to follow. Upon award
    of the contract, design will proceed immediately with a study to
    confirm the exact configuration of the chiller replacement and
    development of a pre-purchase bid package for the chillers and other
    large equipment. This pre-purchase bid package should be bid and
    awarded this spring and summer. Final design of the entire project
    should be complete in early 2000.
    Library of Congress Book Storage Facility at Fort Meade
        Bids are due on February 12, 1999, for the construction of Storage
    Module #1 and an adjacent office component and for initial site
    preparation and development work. There has been an unusually high
    level of response to the Invitation for Bids. The first storage module
    (of an anticipated total of 13) is 8,000 square feet and the office
    component 5,000 square feet. Construction is expected to begin in April
    1999 and be completed in July 2000. Future modules, not tied to
    additional office components, may be larger.
    Roof Fall Protection Program
        The objective of this complex-wide program is the design and
    installation of roof fall protection systems on all buildings as
    required. At present the 30 percent construction documents are being
    reviewed for the U.S. Capitol and House and Senate Office Buildings.
    The documents will be completed before the end of fiscal year 1999.
    Earlier in the design phase are systems for Library of Congress
    Buildings and structures at D.C. Village. Attempts will be made to
    accelerate the completion of construction documents for other buildings
    so that construction might possibly begin subject to the availability
    of reprogrammed funds. The designs of systems for the U.S. Capitol
    Police Headquarters Building and Webster Hall are being given priority
    for acceleration due to the need to obligate annual funds for a
    combination of roof replacement and fall protection system
    installation.
    Underground Storage Tanks
        In compliance with the December 22, 1998, EPA mandate and working
    under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Army Corps of Engineers,
    the Architect has temporarily closed all existing tanks. The Corps is
    working with AOC design consultants on the replacement of those tanks
    identified as essential in support of Congressional operations. Three
    diesel tanks have been designed and are with the Corps for costing. A
    fourth is being designed. A gas tank and gas station are being
    designed; conceptual plans are scheduled to be completed in early
    February 1999. The Corps is also involved with the design of the
    excavation and removal of five other tanks that have been out of
    service and are no longer needed. All of this work is scheduled to be
    completed by the end of June 1999.
    K-9 Facility for the U.S. Capitol Police
        A facility to house twelve police dogs is under construction at
    D.C. Village. The facility is under roof and windows and doors have
    been installed. Interior work is underway including the configuration
    of the individual kennels. Completion is projected during February
    1999.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix H

     Architect of the Capitol Status of Architect of the Capitol Year 2000
              Readiness, Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Hearings
        The AoC developed a ``Year 2000 Compliance (Y2K) Plan'' in May
    1997. The plan originally focused on internal systems, but now the AoC
    views the project in two distinct, yet sometimes overlapping arenas:
    internal mission critical systems; and externalities. As the Y2K
    industry's focus has broadened to include external systems, so too has
    the AoC's focus. Now, there are significant resources being assigned to
    the development of a contingency plan for use in the event of an
    external utility failure.
        The status of the AoC's internal systems has been monitored by GAO
    in its quarterly reports to the Senate Appropriation Legislative Branch
    Subcommittee for four quarters now. The AoC provides input to GAO via
    the Mission Critical Systems inventory. This inventory was created as
    part of the initial AoC Y2K plan, and it is continually being updated
    with system progress and newly identified systems. It was created by
    the AoC's Y2K committee, and recently it has been reassessed through a
    series of meetings with each of the AoC jurisdictions. In addition, the
    inventory is being evaluated by Mitretek: an independent contractor.
    Currently, there are 36 systems on the Mission Critical inventory.
    These systems include building infrastructure systems: elevators;
    environmental control; Senate subway, as well as AoC operational
    systems: accounting; project scheduling; networks; etc. In the latest
    GAO report, the AoC identified 13 of the 36 mission critical systems as
    being implemented. So what is the status of the other 23 systems? Many
    of them are already Y2K compliant or not date-dependent, but lack the
    documentation to include them on the list of implemented systems. The
    remaining systems are being renovated and tested, or are having a work-
    around developed and tested. The AoC has established June 30, 1999 as
    the completion date for testing all systems, and is confident that this
    date will be met. Additional funding to support vendor testing and
    certification, and various system upgrades will be requested from GAO's
    ``emergency supplemental appropriations''. At this time, the AoC knows
    of no internal system that will result in a major disruption to
    operations because of its inability to properly process 2000 as a valid
    date. In addition, most of the building infrastructure equipment does
    not rely on computer-chip technology or has a manual override for
    contingency purposes.
        These building systems are of particular interest to their
    occupants, so it is appropriate to describe the status of some of them
    here.
        The Capitol Power Plant (CPP) does not generate or distribute any
    electrical power. It generates steam for heating the legislative
    buildings and chilled water for cooling, including phone rooms,
    computer rooms, and LoC generators. It is totally dependent on the
    District of Columbia water supply system for its massive consumption
    rate for generating steam and chilled water. The oil and coal fuel for
    steam generation will be stockpiled in late 1999.
        All electric power for the Capitol complex is provided by PEPCO.
        The fire and life safety systems have been certified compliant by
    the vendors. The Fire and Life Safety Office supports their claims, and
    additionally states that as a contingency all ``UL Listed'' fire alarms
    have manual overrides. A complex-wide vendor test and certification of
    all the fire alarms is being planned.
        The automated environmental control system directs the heating and
    cooling units in most of the Capitol complex buildings. The software is
    currently non-Y2K compliant, but the vendor keeps providing changing
    cost proposals for implementing an upgrade. Engineering is evaluating
    the upgrade and at the same time investigating a work-around as a
    contingency. The heating and cooling units can be operated manually as
    a more extreme contingency.
        There are 231 elevators throughout the Capitol complex, but only 65
    of them use computer-chip technology for controls or monitoring. There
    are four vendors that have implemented different versions of their
    systems. The various versions have been tested by AoC personnel, but
    the most frequently used vendor has been providing conflicting
    information about compliance. Only three elevators are in question, but
    our Elevator Engineering Division is preparing to upgrade them and is
    scheduling vendor tests and certifications for most of the other
    systems too.
        The Y2K project at the AoC has benefitted from the cooperative
    efforts of the Senate's Y2K committee activities, the support of AoC
    top-level management, and the active participation of the different AoC
    jurisdictions. The AoC is reasonably confident that its internal
    systems will continue operating without major disruptions into the next
    century. This does not mean that the AoC will reduce its emphasis on
    this project. Quite the opposite, the AoC is now taking a more pro-
    active role in coordinating activities with outside organizations. The
    AoC attends meetings of the CIO Council on Y2K, the House's CAO
    Business Continuity & Contingency Plan meetings, and more. The AoC,
    under the direction of the Assistant Architect, is hosting its own
    weekly executive Y2K meetings, including sponsoring presentations by
    the major utility providers about their Y2K status and contingency
    plans. Representatives from the other legislative agencies are being
    encouraged to participant in these presentations. The briefing by PEPCO
    on February 16 is being followed by a March 9 meeting to formulate
    table-top exercises and failure simulations involving PEPCO, AoC and
    the U.S. Capitol Police. The other utility providers will be asked to
    sponsor the same testing and planning opportunities.
        This leads to the second focus of the Y2K project: externalities.
    Safe and inhabitable Legislative buildings are dependent on external
    utility suppliers. We do not control these suppliers, but we are
    addressing the issue in two ways: (1), we are discussing our concerns
    and developing mutually beneficial tests; and (2), we are developing a
    contingency plan that can be used in the event of a utility failure. As
    noted above, the AoC has scheduled presentations with each of the major
    utilities to learn about their Y2K preparedness and contingency plans
    and will continue a dialogue with each of them. The dialogue will
    assist us in identifying existing systems that may need attention and
    provide direction for contingency planning. Presentations are scheduled
    to be given by Bell Atlantic (March 2), the D.C. Water and Sewer
    Administration (March 9), Washington Gas (March 23) and the legislative
    phone providers will be addressing their systems as well under their
    separate responsible entities.
        The AoC's contingency planning is in the information gathering
    phase. The office of the Director of Engineering is conducting
    mechanical and electrical equipment surveys of each building. This will
    be used to document which equipment is necessary to maintain the
    building infrastructure. The Architect has directed a load capacity
    test of all emergency generators which primarily serve life safety
    functions. The Electrical Engineering Division will coordinate these
    tests and together with the equipment survey, the Director of
    Engineering's Office will develop a base-line of services. This base-
    line will provide a picture of what can be operational in the event of
    a partial or total utility failure. It will also be used to identify
    which equipment needs to be supported by alternative power to more
    comprehensively maintain the buildings infrastructures. The AoC will
    propose reasonable ``Alternative Occupancy Plans'' that will address
    services that can be provided during a utility failure, as well as the
    time and cost of providing each proposal. These proposals will be
    developed by March, 31, 1999 and will be presented for Congressional
    approval. Funding for the occupancy plan will be requested through
    GAO's Y2K and emergency supplemental appropriations as necessary. The
    contingency plan will also include a ``Day-1 Plan'' detailing
    recommendations for staffing, computer room preparation, office
    automation preparation, as well as identifying tasks that will be
    undertaken to ensure the building operations are running smoothly.
        The AoC views the Year 2000 preparations as a good opportunity to
    develop a contingency plan that can be adapted to function as a general
    emergency preparedness plan. The same issues that are arising around
    the Y2K problems could happen any day at any time and disable one or
    more external utility provider. The specific Y2K contingency plan can
    be easily modified to be a non-specific emergency plan, and will also
    provide some direction for building modifications that might lead to
    more utility independent legislative buildings.
                                     ______

                                   Appendix I

      Architect of the Capitol Financial Management System Improvements,
                    Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Hearings
                                  introduction
        The AoC is pursuing the upgrading and integration of information
    systems and business practices in order to provide a business
    environment that provides timely access to reliable information.
    Currently, AoC's various systems do not share information or common
    data definitions. The implementation of a new Financial Management
    System (FMS) and the integration of other systems with FMS will be a
    major step towards AoC's system integration goal. The FMS
    implementation will also lead to the AoC's first preparation and audit
    of financial statements. These goals are fully consistent with the
    Vision Statement of the Legislative Branch Financial Manager's Council,
    which the agency adopted last year. The AoC is currently in the
    beginning stages of the FMS implementation.
        The AoC requires a new financial system that is compliant with
    Federal standards, easily integrated with other systems, provides
    timely and accurate information and contains electronic workflow
    capabilities. The new core financial system must be tightly integrated
    with inventory, procurement and fixed assets systems. It must also
    interface with the other AoC systems such as the facilities management
    system, the human resources system, and the project tracking system.
        The new Financial Management System, which will be compliant with
    all Federal standards, will be implemented in phases. The first phase
    will be the implementation of the core financial system (including the
    Standard General Ledger), an inventory module or system, and a payroll
    interface from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Finance
    Center. Subsequent phases will include the implementation of a
    procurement system containing contract functionality, the integration
    of FMS with the agency's facility management system (CAFM) and the
    project tracking system (PS&C), the implementation of a fixed assets
    system, the enhancement of the labor distribution accounting, and the
    development of an executive information system.
        The AoC has included the members of the Legislative Branch
    Financial Group Manager's Council (LBFMC) in our financial systems
    implementation efforts and will continue to coordinate future tasks
    with LBFMC related to financial management. Further, the General
    Accounting Office has provided staff assistance throughout this effort
    and has agreed to continue its assistance through the evaluation and
    implementation phases.
                            accomplishments to date
        Implemented Y2K fix for accounting system.--In October, 1997, the
    AoC implemented a conversion of existing systems for an interim
    procurement, accounting and inventory system that was Y2K compliant. An
    interim solution was pursued because of time constraints relative to
    the year 2000. The interim system is referred to as CAS (Computer
    Application System). Although the CAS system meets AoC's needs in the
    areas of purchasing, payables and inventory, it is not compliant with
    federal standards and has limited budgeting and general ledger
    functionality. CAS was chosen as an interim solution because it was
    already being used for purchasing at the AoC and it was more cost
    efficient than modifying the previous accounting system. In addition to
    resolving the Y2K issue, the CAS system provided online processing
    capabilities, and integrated procurement, receiving, payment, and
    inventory functionality. Existing data residing on the UNISYS mainframe
    from the previous accounting system was converted to CAS, and the
    UNISYS system was eliminated.
        Hired consultant to validate our FMS requirements.--AoC contracted
    with a consultant to validate our FMS requirements and provide
    recommendations in the selection of a new FMS system. The consultant
    gathered our requirements, compared the requirements to the 11
    federally compliant financial packages offered on the GSA Financial
    Management Software Schedule and determined that 3 packages potentially
    meet AoC's requirements. The consultant also recommended that AoC
    consider an additional vendor since that vendor was the historical
    market leader in federal financial systems, and had software
    implemented in several Legislative offices. In addition, the consultant
    recommended that the AoC resolve several business practice issues
    before going forward with the procurement of a financial package.
        Hired Project Manager to implement FMS.--A project manager was
    hired in November, 1998 to implement the Financial Management System
    and to maintain the system upon the completion of the implementation.
    The new manager has recent experience managing the implementations of
    federal financial systems in 5 federal agencies as a consultant working
    for private industry. He also has previous experience managing
    financial operations as a government employee for 3 federal agencies.
    His expert knowledge of federal financial systems implementations and
    federal financial management procedures will ensure a successful
    implementation of the FMS system. The next step is the hiring of a
    small project team of systems accountants and financial management
    analysts to assist the project manager in the implementation of the
    system. This process is underway.
        Developed draft Statement of Work for FMS procurement.--The AoC is
    currently in the process of preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for
    the purchase of a core financial management system. The RFP will
    contain a Statement of Work specifying the software requirements and
    the implementation support required.
        The draft Statement of Work (SOW) has been developed and is
    currently being reviewed by AoC staff and GAO representatives. The SOW
    includes detailed requirements for the core financial system,
    inventory, procurement, fixed assets, system interfaces, reporting, and
    general technical requirements. The SOW also contains the requirements
    for contractor support required for implementing the first phase of FMS
    (core system and inventory).
        Developed draft Project Plan for FMS implementation.--A draft
    project plan has been developed that describes the project purpose,
    tasks, staffing and provides a risk management plan during
    implementation. Also provided is a detailed schedule of the
    implementation tasks required to be performed, and a schedule of the
    ``pre-software selection'' tasks that need to be accomplished. The
    draft implementation plan covers a 17 month implementation period with
    a ``go live'' date of 14 months after the purchase of the software.
        The selection of a vendor and the purchase of the software is
    tentatively scheduled to be accomplished by the end of this calendar
    year. This schedule is dependent upon the appropriation of necessary
    funding (which is requested in fiscal year 2000), our procurement
    approach and the resolution of several business process issues
    (discussed in the next section).
                   upcoming financial management initiatives
        Select FMS package.--The AoC plans to select and purchase a
    financial management package by the end of this calendar year. This is
    an aggressive schedule when considering the tasks that need to be
    performed to select a financial software package and it is being
    reviewed by the GAO. The requirements analysis performed by a private
    consulting company (discussed under the accomplishments section),
    recommended the resolution of 3 business practice issues prior to
    purchasing a system. The issues that affect the financial system
    requirements are as follows:
      --Time Tracking.--Time tracking is an important element in the
            information required to manage facilities management activities
            and construction projects. The consultant's report recommends
            that the AoC define and standardize business practices to
            capture detailed, real time costs for labor by project and
            labor category across AoC. This will provide AoC leadership
            adequate information for planning, estimating, and managing
            work, and also enhance reporting capabilities to oversight and
            appropriations committees.
      --Work Management.--Standard procedures are needed for performing
            facilities management and construction management activities
            across the AoC. Currently, each jurisdiction operates
            differently, and there is a lack of consistent communication
            across AoC jurisdictions with respect to resource usage. The
            AoC also needs to review its segregated inventory practices and
            consider aligning inventory and procurement procedures with
            overall organizational inventory needs.
      --IRM Strategy and Infrastructure.--The AoC needs to clearly define
            its business processes, organizations, business locations and
            functions in order to develop an IRM strategy that achieves a
            truly integrated business process. The information technology
            architecture must be aligned with, and support the
            organizations operation.
        Prior to issuing a Request for Procurement, the three issues
    discussed above will be addressed. Once the effect on the financial
    requirements are determined, the statement of work can be adjusted and
    the AoC can go forward with the procurement.
        Other tasks that AoC will perform prior to selecting a financial
    package are as follows:
      --The AoC will develop the criteria for evaluating the various vendor
            proposals. As many as 11 proposals are expected to be received.
            Effective evaluation criteria will result in AoC choosing the
            best system to meet its requirements.
      --The AoC will arrange informal demonstrations of the vendor products
            prior to issuing the procurement document. This will allow AoC
            staff to gain preliminary knowledge regarding the vendors'
            products prior to beginning the formal evaluation process.
      --After the receipt of the formal proposals, the AoC will
            ``downselect'' the best qualified proposals and require the
            vendors to perform Operational Capability Demonstrations (OCD)
            to demonstrate how their software meets the stated
            requirements. This process will allow AoC to determine if the
            systems perform basic requirements in an efficient and user-
            friendly manner.
        Implement the Financial Management System (FMS).--The FMS project
    includes the implementation of a core financial system and the
    integration of the core system with other AoC existing and planned
    systems. The system will be implemented in phases as follows:
      --Phase 1.--Implementation of the core financial system and inventor
            module. This will include the development of an interface with
            the USDA payroll system and the conversion of data from the
            existing financial system (CAS). The CAS system will be phased
            out as the data is converted to FMS. Phase 1 is expected to be
            complete by the end of fiscal year 2001.
      --Phase 2.--Implementation of a procurement system that provides
            contractual functionality. This will include the integration of
            the system with the core financial system. Also occurring
            during Phase 2 will be the resolution of any implementation
            issues from Phase 1. Phase 2 is expected to be completed by the
            end of fiscal year 2002.
      --Phase 3.--Integration of the Facilities Management System and the
            Project Tracking System with FMS. This may also include the
            integration of a new Time and Attendance system and the
            development of an Executive Information System. This phase is
            expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2003.
        Inventory Improvements.--The AoC is currently in the process of
    improving its inventory operations to increase controls over the
    safeguarding of assets and provide consistency across the jurisdictions
    in the application of inventory procedures. A complete reconciliation
    of the actual ``in-stock'' inventory to the inventory accounting
    records is in process. Procedures are being enhanced to ensure the
    continued accuracy of the information. A regularly occurring cycle
    count process is also being put in place. These activities will not
    only enhance control over inventory operations, they will also
    facilitate the FMS implementation and eventual auditing of financial
    statements.

                     removal of Parking on Maryland Avenue

        Senator Bennett. Let me interrupt you with a very tiny
    item, but nonetheless, given its source, I need to pursue it. A
    very senior member of the United States Senate approached me
    and said: You are the chairman of that subcommittee, are you
    not? I said yes.
        He said: I run every day in that area, my daily run. And I
    have watched the progress in the Botanic Gardens and the areas
    being fenced off and so on. He said: In the course of fencing
    it off, you have eliminated parking spaces for about 100 people
    who work on Capitol Hill, and I never see any construction
    equipment in the area of the parking spaces. Can you not
    restore those parking slots for the individuals who work on the
    Hill who are now inconvenienced?
        I do not know enough about construction and safety and the
    rest of those things to answer his question. But given his
    seniority and his position over me in another circumstance, I
    promised him I would raise it, and I think it is something I
    would like to be able to go back and report to him on.
        Mr. Hantman. First of all, Mr. Chairman, alternative
    parking locations have been found for the people whose spots
    have been dislocated from Maryland Avenue, many of whom are in
    my agency.
        Senator Bennett. Oh, so you hear about it directly.
        Mr. Hantman. I do, sir.
        But we have worked with the House Sergeant at Arms and
    their parking people to find alternative locations for these
    folks. What we have done essentially is in closing Maryland
    Avenue we have reserved the space for the contractors for the
    U.S. Fund, the National Fund area as well. We will have two
    different contractors working on two separate contiguous
    projects. So we appropriated half the site for the Botanic
    Garden and the other half for the National Fund project, which
    will be awarded within the next couple of months.
        Senator Bennett. OK. I have now done my duty.

                            Capitol dome renovation

        Mr. Hantman. The second major project which everybody is
    very aware of is the dome project. We had gotten emergency
    funding to the extent of $7.5 million to essentially do
    research into the Dome, to find out what the real scope of the
    problem is. I guess the doctor has to go in and cut the patient
    open a little bit to find out what is in there. Hopefully,
    radiation therapy and things like that will not be necessary.
        We have awarded that first contract, which is really for
    the interstitial space between the inner dome and the outer
    dome, to remove the lead-based paint, to do inspection on every
    plate and every structural member in that area, to be able to
    determine how many cracked pieces of cast iron need to be
    replaced, can we fix them in place, how are the connectors
    faring after 140 years.
        All of this work is going to be underway. We have awarded
    the contract. The contractor should be coming on site this
    month. He will be staging his work between the central rotunda
    steps on the east plaza and the Senate steps, and building
    scaffolding to get up above the base building of the Senate to
    the dome itself. This is projected to be an 18-month project.
        We have requested clearance from our leadership on both the
    Senate and the House side to be able to close the rotunda for a
    period of 3 weeks plus or minus in order to set up the
    scaffolding that we will need to protect the rotunda so that we
    can do that work and allow people to continue to walk through.
        I am not sure, sir, if you have seen our renderings. Rather
    than going back to what had been done in 1959 or so, 1960, when
    work was last done, that required scaffolding from the floor of
    the rotunda all the way up to the Apotheosis, we are trying to
    hang our scaffolding, essentially our netting, from the upper
    levels of the walkways so that they will drape below the column
    level and you will still be able to see essentially,
    Apotheosis, essentially through a doughnut of draperies.
        This is not a containment element relative to removal of
    the hazardous materials, the lead-based paint we have up above.
    That will be done square foot by square foot in a contained
    area within the interstitial space. What this is meant to do is
    protect against any paint or other elements from spalling off
    the inside surface of the rotunda.
        So we will need to close the rotunda itself for several
    weeks to set up this netting and the scaffolding required for
    it, and then ultimately we would have to, I think, at the
    closing stage close it again to remove the scaffolding.
        Part of the design for it, again, was meant to allow us to
    leave that scaffolding in place should we need to have a lying
    in state or a special activity in the rotunda itself, and this
    is the clearance that we are looking for from the leadership,
    because the two to three days we would need to take it down
    would not be adequate to remove scaffolding and spend several
    hundred thousand dollars again putting it back up should we
    need it at that point in time.
        So the project should get underway. We think we will still
    be able to have dome tours for a short period of time, perhaps
    the last week of March and early April, before we seriously get
    started with the removal process itself.
        We have in this year's budget a request for some $28
    million, which is building on what we think the scope of work
    of this work will show us. We have done a lot of inspection
    work over there. I think this work will continue to inform us
    on what the real scope wants to be.
        But we did not want to lose a year in the appropriations--
    --

                          Capitol dome renovation cost

        Senator Feinstein. Could I interrupt, with the chairman's
    approval, just on that one point?
        Mr. Hantman. Surely.
        Senator Feinstein. It is my understanding that a few years
    ago the dome project was estimated to cost $3 to $4 million.
    Now you just mentioned $28 million, and it is projected, I
    believe, to cost $35.5 million. That is a huge increase.
        Is the $35.5 million figure now a firm figure?
        Mr. Hantman. This is exactly what I was beginning to talk
    to, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Sorry.
        Mr. Hantman (continuing). The issue of the first $7.5
    million, which was an emergency appropriation, was meant to
    help us find out just those facts. Until we get in and really
    do the inspection, we are not going to know what the real
    number wants to be. It would be grabbing at air.
        What we are doing right now in this first phase, the $7.5
    million phase, will be looking at every plate, every structural
    member, all of the components that go into the dome itself, to
    determine what the full scope wants to be.
        The $28 million that we are recommending in this budget
    would build on that $7.5 million, and that would include not
    only remedial work inside the dome, but outside the dome,
    inside the rotunda, all of the work. The original $3 million
    that had been estimated by my predecessor on this was basically
    a quick and dirty paint job on the outside of the dome, and
    even in that sense it did not take into account the EPA
    criteria for contained removal of lead-based paint.
        Senator Feinstein. So what you are saying is we actually at
    this stage have no idea what the total cost is going to be?
        Mr. Hantman. We have a fairly good idea. What we will be
    seeing is----
        Senator Feinstein. And it is what?
        Mr. Hantman. The $7.5 million is the first increment. We
    are requesting $28 million right now for the next phase, and we
    have earmarked some $2 million in an out year if that $28
    million is not adequate. So we are looking at potentially $37.5
    million for the project, which is a project that--much of this
    work has not been touched for 140 years, from the gutters to
    the structural elements to repairing plates.
        Back in 1959-1960 they did some minor work on this area,
    but the balustrades have to be totally replaced. They have
    rusted out. Some of those plates are being held on by rust
    right now. We will be doing repairing of existing plates in
    place, trying not to remove the shell of the dome. In fact, we
    had John Whitman, Christie Todd Whitman's husband, in the other
    day talking about the restoration project they just did in New
    Jersey--a much smaller dome, but learning from their
    experiences and working with them, as we have also in Ohio on a
    similar dome by the same architect on a courthouse. We have
    been doing that kind of investigation.
        Senator Feinstein. Just one last question. Are you saying,
    then, that the firm final figure for the work on the dome is
    $37 million? Or are you saying this is just an estimate of what
    our preliminary stuff might additional cost, it could be much
    more?
        Mr. Hantman. That is our best sense of what it would cost.
    We do not believe it will be much more.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. If you want, Senator Feinstein, I am sure
    the Architect would be happy to take you on the same tour that
    he took me on, where you walk through and look at some of these
    things.
        Mr. Hantman. We welcome that opportunity.
        Senator Bennett. Until you actually have it pointed out to
    you, you do not realize----
        Senator Feinstein. How much needs to be done.
        Senator Bennett (continuing). How much needs to be done.
        It is incredible to me that this cast iron building that
    was put up 150 years ago has basically had nothing done to it
    except paint in that period.
        Mr. Hantman. It is virtually true.
        Senator Bennett. It is really quite an interesting tour.
        Mr. Hantman. I think it is heartening to know that we did a
    structural analysis of the physical structure, the trusses that
    really hold up the dome, a three-dimensional computerized
    structural analysis to take a look at whether we are really
    deteriorating up there, and we found out that it was well
    designed, well built. We are not in trouble structurally.
        It is really the skin that is the issue right now, and it
    looks wonderfully pristine when it is lit up at night. But we
    would be happy to show you the issues.
        Senator Bennett. Keep it lit. [Laughter.]

                   Dirksen Senate Office Building renovation

        Mr. Hantman. The next basic project, Dirksen Senate Office
    Building. The design is virtually complete. We are underway
    with some of the swing space construction in the Russell
    Courtyard. You, Mr. Chairman, of course are going to be very
    directly impacted by this project.
        Senator Bennett. Yes, I am going to have to move out of my
    office.
        Mr. Hantman. Right, into SDG-50, which is well appointed
    for that. It is going to be musical chairs for all of the
    members, as well as the committees, that are inhabitants of
    that building. But we are going to bring it up to the state of
    the art. So we do have $18 million in the fiscal year 2000
    budget request for that as well.
        Senator Bennett. Remind me again how long this is going to
    take and how much money we are going to have each year? Is $18
    million----
        Mr. Hantman. It is one more increment of $18 million.
        Senator Bennett. That would be the following year?
        Mr. Hantman. Correct. The total project cost as we are
    seeing it is $54 million. We have $8.5 million this year and we
    have had----
        Mr. Pregnall. $8.5 million previously.
        Mr. Hantman. $8.5 million previously.
        Senator Bennett. So the bulk will be in fiscal year 2000
    and 2001, and then it will start to taper off?
        Mr. Hantman. That is correct, sir.
        Senator Feinstein. Could I? Does this include the air
    conditioning system as well? Are you looking at that?
        Mr. Hantman. We are looking into the mechanical
    distribution system as well. One of the major issues is the
    flexibility to divide spaces into sub-offices or into large
    open offices at the discretion of the member. It is not there
    now. We have perimeter systems. So we will have air-diffuser
    light fixtures where you will be able to put up partitions and
    control the distribution of air much more reasonably.
        Senator Feinstein. Because there is a wide swing on the
    quality of air in this building, in particularly the hearing
    rooms. Some are fine, like this one. Others are just dreadful.
    Like for example, right now in Judiciary, every public hearing
    since this session the lights go out, everything goes out, and
    the air does not work at all right.
        The Foreign Relations one is the same, very poor air
    quality. I just think you should know that.
        Mr. Hantman. We are very well aware of that, Senator, and
    we are going to be resolving that as part of this problem.
        Senator Bennett. It is interesting to me to discover that
    the Russell Building technologically is probably at the highest
    level of any of the three buildings.
        Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
        Senator Feinstein. That is interesting.
        Senator Bennett. They have gone through and upgraded
    Russell completely and now they are doing it to Dirksen.
        Senator Feinstein. I can tell you, the Hart air is
    terrible. It is all contained, so the bad air goes from one
    office to the other.
        Mr. Hantman. That is the newest building, obviously.
        Senator Feinstein. Anyway.

                                Visitors center

        Mr. Hantman. The last project I just wanted to surface with
    you because I will be coming to you fairly shortly on it is the
    Capitol visitors center. Obviously, $100 million was applied to
    my budget as of last year, basically earlier this year. What I
    owe you folks is an obligation plan, and that is what I am
    working on and am hoping to submit to you and to the matching
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Committee on the House side
    next week.
        This obligation plan is to talk about the planning phase of
    what needs to be done in response to the legislation that was
    passed along with that appropriation. That legislation called
    for a revalidation, a re-examination, of the 1995 plan, the
    components of that plan, the location of the visitors center
    itself.
        In my cover letter to you I will be saying that I have a
    very high degree of comfort and sense of correctness of the
    1995 plan, and I am hoping that we can short-circuit some of
    the criteria that is put in the legislation, specifically
    reporting to at least six different committees and leadership
    on both sides of the House. I will be submitting two schedules
    to you: one, a worst case schedule, assuming one committee
    gives us approval on what we are talking about, another one
    says yes, but change this, another says no, but change that,
    and we will never get concurrence and be able to move ahead.
        There was an editorial in Roll Call not too long ago
    indicating that I was horrendously holding up the project. What
    I am trying to do is respond to what the legislation says and,
    concurrently with that, give you a recommendation of what an
    expedited schedule could be given the fact that we can have a
    review and approval process that we are all comfortable with.
        So that should be coming to you next week in terms of the
    appropriations requirement and I assume, based on the
    legislation, it then has to go to the six committees and
    whatever. So I will be asking you to essentially give us a few
    dollars up front so we can start the process while the big
    considerations are being looked at, so that we can move ahead
    with what is essentially a security and a life safety issue. So
    we will be talking further on that.

                             Operations improvement

        Mr. Hantman. Operations improvement. When I came in here,
    basically FMS systems were nonexistent; work management systems
    were nonexistent. We are trying to build a foundation here for
    this agency so that we can report as necessary to report,
    monitor all the expenditure of funds as necessary for you folks
    to be comfortable that we are monitoring them, for the GAO to
    be comfortable on that.
        We have installed a CAFM system, computer-assisted
    facilities management system, which the Senate did fund us for,
    and it was used for the first time during this selection cycle.
    So the Senate Rules Committee was able to call up on their
    computer screen every suite that the Senators might have, look
    at the musical chairs that we were playing with the changes of
    suites, being able to coordinate it with the Sergeant at Arms
    and their needs to look at it, and make that selection process
    much quicker and much more coordinated.
        We are also beginning to implement that on the House side.
    We have implemented it in the Capitol as well. Demand work
    orders are now being captured on that system as well, so we can
    take a look at how many hours, days it took to perform a
    function, how we are using our time much more efficiently. So
    we think that is a major first step in terms of our
    accountability to the Senate and to the Congress as a whole.
        On HRMD, the human resources management, we do have an
    appendix that talks about all of the issues that we looked at.
    Revitalization of our training program. Upward mobility
    programs have been signed off with the union. We are actively
    negotiating with them on several of these areas.
        Policy standardization across the board is very important.
    Larry Stoffel is here from the Senate Office Buildings, does an
    excellent job; Amita Poole from the Capitol Building itself;
    and of course Bob Miley services the House Office Buildings.
        Now, each one of these areas had basically been doing
    things their own way for many years. Now that we have unions,
    we have a compliance board meeting to standardize procedures
    and policies across the campus to make sure that we are doing
    things fairly, equitably, and getting the job done. This is
    what HRMD is striving to do and I think in the appendix on that
    we talk about many of those issues, and we are hoping to
    continue to build a strong relationship with the union and the
    folks that they represent as part of our agency.

                              Re-engineering plan

        In terms of re-engineering, we have been talking about
    being able to offer selected groups within our organization
    buyouts where it is appropriate. We have gotten approval on the
    first year of the 3-year buyout program from the Senate side.
    We have not yet gotten approval from the House side for that
    same program.
        Part of our goal had been to pay for the buyouts out of
    appropriated funds on salaries for that year. We are now past
    the point of return on this fiscal year where we would no
    longer have funds available to pay off the maximum of $25,000
    that our people would be eligible for on a purely voluntary
    basis. So we will probably be coming back to you with a request
    to expand that 3-year authority to do a fourth year so that
    come October 1st we can do what we had planned to do this
    fiscal year, but we have not been able to do because we have
    not gotten the signoffs on that yet. So we are moving on that,
    however.
        We are also doing training for all supervisory managers,
    skill enhancement programs, etcetera, trying to bring our
    people up to modern management methodologies.

                                  Life safety

        Life safety focus. As you pointed out earlier, Mr.
    Chairman, the Russell Building is in pretty good shape. The
    Dirksen Building is going to be moving along as part of this
    project. We have some $16 million earmarked in this budget for
    life safety programs.
        We have centralized life safety across the campus under our
    Executive Officer Lynne Theiss, who is here with us today.
        Senator Bennett. Pardon me. What is your definition of
    ``life safety''?
        Mr. Hantman. Emergency means of egress, fire detection,
    sprinkler alarms, separate from the security issues relative to
    the police.
        Senator Bennett. OK.
        Mr. Hantman. Those are two separate but yet interconnected
    issues.
        So we are moving ahead on that. Many egress doors that
    never met code before have been complied with. You will see
    that in the Capitol. You will also see that in the Senate
    office buildings. There are doors that never had emergency
    signs on it, panic hardware, any of that nature; they are being
    retrofitted. In fact, revolving doors will be replaced as well
    for means of egress throughout our Capitol complex. So we are
    moving on that very well.

                         Physical security master plan

        As far as security is concerned, one thing that did not
    come up in the hearing with the Capitol Police Board was the
    master plan we are doing on the physical security side. Part of
    our two-day retreat, we will have a report from our task force
    on physical security that is looking into training facilities
    that the police badly need, what will happen as their staff
    grows and they need additional locker areas, they need
    additional command center functions, offsite inspection for
    trucks, things of this nature, vehicle maintenance facilities.
        All of these elements are part of the master plan and we
    are trying to coordinate that with the Library of Congress,
    with the Supreme Court as well and their need for inspection as
    well as training of their separate police groups as well.
        So we are looking at that. We will be talking about that
    with the Capitol Police Board over the next couple of days and
    ultimately coming back with recommendations on what we think
    that master plan wants to be.

                               Perimeter security

        Relative to the perimeter security program, we just got
    signoff from the House of Representatives last week on the
    perimeter security program for Capitol Square. We had gotten
    signoff from the Senate on the perimeter security programs
    surrounding the Senate office buildings and we are proceeding
    on that. Our construction documents should be complete this
    month. We should be in the ground this summer.
        We will be negotiating with the foundry that prepared the
    design and the castings for the White House. The bollards that
    are surrounding the White House right now have Secret Service
    clearance. They have been designed specifically for certain
    levels of criteria which we are going to be incorporating into
    the Capitol as well.
        We had a kickoff meeting yesterday relative to the
    perimeter security program on the Capitol Square itself, now
    that the House has signed off on it. We are going to start a
    survey to take a look at where all the trees are, how the
    bollards can be integrated into the landscape, what kind of
    gates we might need for State of the Union Addresses or
    Inauguration Addresses, for automobiles or trucks or whatever
    to get in to service the grounds, and all of these issues are
    starting up now, now that we have gotten the clearances to move
    on that.

                            Y2K computer compliance

        Next issue is Y2K. We have taken this very seriously. We
    have meetings every week on Y2K within our organization, and we
    are very much involved with the GAO and they are looking over
    our shoulders as well. We have renovated and validated some 27
    of our 36 mission critical systems. These are internal systems.
        GAO has approved 16 of these 27 systems at this point in
    time and we are confident that the remaining 9 systems will be
    complete in time for the Y2K criteria. We can certainly go into
    that in much more detail. We have charts and graphs if you
    would like at this point, Mr. Chairman.
        The other issue certainly deals with things that are
    relatively beyond our control. I have met personally with
    Chairman John Derick of PEPCO, with D.C. Water. We are talking
    with GSA on the steam supplies they have to the Capitol
    complex. Bell Atlantic, we met with them yesterday. Our fuel
    oil suppliers--all of these issues to find out where external
    suppliers are relative to their ability to support us.
        As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, I think most of these
    folks have attorneys on their staffs and nobody will guarantee
    anything. But we are fairly comfortable that PEPCO has told us
    that they are in excellent shape relative to this. D.C. Water
    we are checking into further because PEPCO is out of business
    if D.C. Water is not able to do what they need to do.
        So those external issues are very much on our minds. We are
    working on that. What would happen if PEPCO did not provide us
    with the power or the water from D.C.? Basically, we have
    emergency generators that would give us emergency power,
    lighting, essentially to evacuate the buildings. We have over
    13 million square feet up here on the Hill and we do not have
    the capability to have redundant systems to provide power for
    all of our office buildings to be operating.
        We are looking into alternatives should power not be
    available for some elements within the Capitol building itself
    and the availability of additional generating capacity through
    DOD are things that we are looking at, as well as trying to
    guarantee that we will have the water to make systems work in
    the first place.
        If you would like, sir, I could introduce Rick Kashurba,
    who is our Director of IRM, and his staff to talk you through
    where we are, what systems we have been looking at, and where
    we are.
        Senator Bennett. I do not think I will take the time of the
    subcommittee to do that. But we may very well find a time when
    we can go through that.

                          Financial management system

        Mr. Hantman. The next issue is the financial management
    system. We have hired a new project manager, Russ Follin, Russ
    over here. Russ is our key man on this. He has implemented FMS
    systems for five Federal agencies on a consulting basis. He has
    been actively working with four other Federal agencies as an
    internal employee on FMS systems as well.
        We have hired Arthur Andersen to validate our requirements.
    Our requirements are basically complete. GAO is reviewing them
    right now. We are resolving our business practices issues, and
    our targeted completion is for April.
        We have developed a statement of work, an RFP, a project
    plan, which GAO is also reviewing right now. They were actively
    involved with us in selecting both Mr. Follin and looking at
    our criteria as well. They are very comfortable, as we
    understand it, right now with it.
        We expect to put the RFP out this summer, contractor award
    with the fiscal 2000 budget. We are asking for some $3.3
    million for this project in fiscal year 2000. We expect to
    begin implementation the end of this calendar year.
        GAO has provided staff sources to date. They have indicated
    a willingness to continue this, and we touch base with them at
    every step of the way. So we are very comfortable that what we
    are about to go out on the street with will meet our
    requirements.
        Mr. Follin has again seen some horror stories with other
    Federal agencies, learned from that experience, and we are
    trying to make sure that we do not repeat some of those
    mistakes.
        So if there are any further questions on FMS, we can talk
    about that here again, or again it could be a separate hearing.
        Senator Bennett. GAO recommended that this new position
    report directly to you and I understand you have made the
    decision not to have that happen. Do you want to take this
    opportunity to explain to us why you chose to have the
    reporting structure something other than the GAO
    recommendation?
        Mr. Hantman. Most of my senior officers have direct access
    to me at all times. For a day to day reporting and coordination
    basis, working with Stuart Pregnall, our Budget Officer, to
    help coordinate all of that between his areas and other areas
    seemed to make sense.
        This is nothing that I put on the back burner or take for
    granted. I am involved in the process. We have virtually
    constant meetings on this, both the Y2K and the FMS. But on a
    day to day basis, getting it up and running in this way was
    what I thought made the most sense.
        Senator Bennett. Well, I do not want to micromanage or
    second guess your management decisions, but as we got into this
    area and you very aggressively moved to try to make things
    better, this was one very firm recommendation and I wanted to
    give you the opportunity to explain why you have decided to do
    it differently.
        But be aware that we are aware of where you are. We are
    delighted that you are on board, Mr. Follin, and that the kind
    of changes that needed to be made seem to be underway.
        Mr. Hantman. I am confident that we are moving in the right
    direction. We certainly need to be much more accountable than
    this agency has ever been, and that is exactly where we are
    going.

                                Operating budget

        The last issue on the agenda, of course, is the fiscal year
    2000 request. It is a very large request, as Senator Feinstein
    mentioned earlier on. The percentage increases are also
    significant. Two parts, components, of this budget.
        One is the operating budget, at $168.3 million. This
    represents a 10.7 percent increase over last year; 38 percent
    of that 10.7 is mandated pay and benefit increases, which we do
    not control; 33 percent is utility increases; 40 percent of
    that is for water and sewer increases coming to us from the
    District and back charges as well; 17 percent is IRM, which we
    are beginning to implement and move on up, technology-related
    types of costs. So that is basically the 10.7 percent increase.
    We are trying to keep it down.
        Otherwise, part of our re-engineering effort was for us to
    be able to take a look at our staffing levels, how appropriate
    is it, what levels of staff do we need at key areas throughout
    the agency, how much of that work should be looked at for
    outside sources. We were committed through this 3-year re-
    engineering effort to cut back on our core staff as a natural
    function of re-engineering, not for the function of downsizing,
    not for the function of privatization, but for good management
    techniques.
        We are hoping to return to you, after the 3-year program is
    implemented, some $4 to $5 million in operating costs. That has
    been our goal and that was the basis upon which we requested
    this 3-year buyout and it was approved. So that is where we are
    on that.

                                 Capital budget

        With respect to our capital budget, yes, it is a very large
    number. Over the last two presentations to you, Mr. Chairman--
    clearly, Senator Feinstein was not involved in that--we had
    gone through an exercise to take a look at benchmarking, what
    kind of appropriate benchmarking levels we might have as we
    talk about capital projects. We had come up with, as you may
    recall, a 1.7 percent of replacement value of the buildings
    that are under our care.
        We had, for your information, Senator Feinstein, we were
    talking about basically a $3.6 billion replacement value of the
    buildings on Capitol Hill; 1.7 percent basically comes out to
    about a $60 million reinvestment on a cyclical basis each year,
    just to stay steady, not for new projects, not for new
    technology, not for special security projects. That level of
    investment is very appropriate throughout other governmental
    agencies. GSA I think is at 2 percent, the Corps of Engineers
    1.75 percent is what they aim for. Federal depreciation
    allowance from the IRS is 40 years, as you may know, on a
    project, 2.5 percent annually if it converts to that.
        So we think we are very conservative in terms of those
    numbers. Every project we bring before you clearly has to be
    supported in and of itself, but in terms of measuring the
    quantity once they start adding up we think that that $60
    million, that is 1.7 percent, is not a bad benchmark for us to
    look at.
        We had requested some $53 million in last fiscal year for
    capital cyclical projects. I think $46 million was approved.
        Going back over the last half a dozen years, taking a look
    at that benchmark line--again, we have charts on it, which we
    may not need at this point, but we can certainly get into it in
    more detail later--if you look at that $60 million line going
    out over time and the actual appropriations that have been
    given for capital projects, we basically have a deficit of
    about $155 million over the last years that never met that
    line.
        When I came in in 1997 there was $14 million in the capital
    budget, which had come down from $33 million to $30 million to
    $28 million, $24 million, and we were really not reinvesting in
    our infrastructure the way we needed to.
        I appreciate your comment earlier, Mr. Chairman, that some
    things are long overdue, and the comment you made last year
    also when we came to you on our $56 million budget was: If this
    is an average, if this is a mean, you are going to have to go
    above that mean some time to come up with the average. I think
    last year we had projected for this year $111 million. We are
    coming before you with $102 million basically for the cyclical
    maintenance component of that, in addition to the new projects
    that we are looking at.
        So again, many projects here--the Capitol dome, $28
    million; the Dirksen Building, $18 million; $5 million for
    replacement of the chiller on the east plant; $16 million total
    in life safety. In your backup material we break it down by
    category and prioritize it, starting with life safety,
    security, ADA, all of those going down as the highest
    priorities. Cyclical maintenance in there as well, technology.
        So that, depending on where the budget ends up, we can take
    our first priorities and see what we can really afford to do.
    But that is the full exercise that we have gone through, and we
    certainly can talk about any individual project or the total
    scope as necessary.

                         Capital project implementation

        Senator Bennett. I have no problem with the concepts you
    have just outlined. I am a little concerned that there seems to
    be some delay in the implementation of some money we have
    appropriated for you that in fact has not been spent as delays
    have come along.
        Are the delays occasioned by the committee structure you
    have to go through? Have you run into more problems that slow
    you down than you had anticipated in terms of the reactions you
    get back? Why do we have that kind of a backlog building up?
        Mr. Hantman. On the projects that need approval from both
    the Senate and the House, it was interesting because on my
    first anniversary I went before the House Legislative Branch
    Committee and Congressman Vic Fazio asked me how I felt about
    the job right now, what was the biggest surprise that I had
    found and not expected? I spoke before that committee, which
    was chaired by Jim Walsh of New York, and I indicated the
    biggest surprise was really I had expected to be negotiating
    between Democrats and Republicans and that being the biggest
    problem, but I found the biggest problem is the difference in
    philosophy between the House and the Senate.
        That in fact is a reality, certainly relative to the
    perimeter security and the time frame for approving that
    project and some of the other security-related issues. Our re-
    engineering effort was signed off on----
        Senator Bennett. Who is the most spendthrift, the Senate?
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hantman. I think that I am actually very pleased----
        Senator Feinstein. He is not going to answer. [Laughter.]
        Senator Bennett. He has been around here 2 years. He has
    learned a few things.
        Mr. Hantman. I am actually very pleased on both sides of
    the Capitol rotunda with the concept that I think people,
    members on both sides, are very really--very concerned with the
    conservation of these national landmarks of our heritage here.
    I have been very heartened by the fact that I come before the
    Senate, I come before the House, and I try as a professional to
    present the information, the facts, do a tour, show where the
    walls are falling down, what the issues are all about, and when
    people recognize that they say: We have to fix it.
        So I think that has happened. Certainly it happened with
    the dome. It is happening on the visitors center as well,
    although it takes a little longer, and which is why I am going
    to be giving you two schedules in this obligation plan for the
    visitors center. If we can work out methodologies that make
    sense, we can move with alacrity. If we cannot, I have found
    that my expectations, whether it is on re-engineering or
    perimeter security, I have not been able to get the kind of
    approvals or reviews as I would like to get, so things have to
    fall back.
        Unfortunately, some of these things are, just like PEPCO,
    beyond my control.

                               Senate restaurants

        Senator Bennett. One very minor question, and you will get
    it on the Rules Committee from Senator Santorum. You last year
    predicted that the Senate restaurants would be----
        Senator Feinstein. Oh, yes.
        Senator Bennett. You have already gone through that?
        The Senate restaurants would be $200,000 in the black in
    1998 and $600,000 in the black in 1999. Would you care to take
    another stab at that one?
        Mr. Hantman. Let me introduce Lynne Theiss, who is director
    of the restaurants, and I have promoted her to be our Executive
    Officer as well.
        Ms. Theiss. Good morning, Senator.
        Senator Bennett. Good morning. I assume that
    congratulations are due.
        Ms. Theiss. Yes, sir.
        We had a very successful process working with the Rules
    Committee last year of offering two buyouts to the Senate
    restaurant employees. In that process, approximately 42
    employees left voluntarily, some that were at retirement age,
    and we basically found in the review by GAO and KPMG, who are
    the outside auditors who come in and do the records on the
    Rules Committee, that one of the problems, we had too much
    labor, we had redundant systems.
        Senator, you may recall that in the old days the Senators
    dining room was serviced strictly from the basement kitchen in
    the Capitol. We spent a great deal of money several years ago
    to renovate the pantry, but we still kept all the cooks. So we
    had double sets of cooks because the other set of cooks were
    doing the public dining room only several years ago.
        Through attrition, we were hoping that they would naturally
    leave when they became eligible. So we offered a buyout and we
    found out that they were waiting for that opportunity, which is
    one of the reasons why we went forward with the AOC's re-
    engineering package, understanding that there was a need, that
    people were waiting for the opportunity given to other
    Legislative Branch employees.
        At this point, with the 40 employees gone, that is almost
    $700,000 in payroll you are looking at as a savings. We have,
    again with the Rules Committee's approval, made some
    organizational changes as far as the operations, changing where
    we have some services being offered, extending some hours, and
    starting to open up facilities that were not opened adequately.
        Some of the opportunities that will be coming out very
    shortly in the spring for the Senators dining room will be
    afternoon tea on Thursday afternoon, because we know Tuesdays,
    Wednesdays, and Thursdays are normally late night sessions.
    That being the case, we are saying let us do some transition
    work and have afternoon tea available and then in the evening
    have an actual dinner being available in the dining room,
    versus using just the inner sanctum, which was very, very
    casual.
        This way, if you want to have family come in, if there are
    other groups that want to come in, we can utilize those
    resources. It was basically an underutilized operation in the
    Capitol.
        Over here in the office buildings, our current appraisal is
    that we are ahead of sales from last year by over $300,000 for
    the first quarter, and that is very heartening to see, that
    people are saying these are good changes, let us keep going
    with it.
        There are some operational issues that still have to be
    addressed. You can only squeeze so many people into some of
    these facilities.
        Senator Feinstein. I am not familiar with the term ``ahead
    of sales.'' What does that mean?
        Senator Bennett. The top line is up by $300,000.
        Ms. Theiss. That is correct.
        Senator Feinstein. All right.
        Senator Bennett. We do not have a bottom line yet.
        Senator Feinstein. Oh, all right.
        Ms. Theiss. At this point what we are running into, and we
    have had very good cooperation with the Rules Committee, is
    during the planning process with the Dirksen renovation, so
    that we can still have outside constituents who have used these
    facilities for catering have additional spaces to go to, so if
    we move somebody out we will not have lost revenue even during
    the Dirksen renovation process as well.
        So we are looking for the black this year.
        Senator Bennett. OK. Senator Feinstein, questions?

                       Senate employees child care center

        Senator Feinstein. I would like to ask about something that
    is not as prominent as the dome, but it is the Senate employees
    child care center. What I have been told concerns me greatly.
    That is that this was originally scheduled for groundbreaking
    in the fall of 1996 and to be completed in the fall of 1997. It
    remains incomplete.
        Senator Bennett. I do not think we will meet those dates.
        Senator Feinstein. I do not think so. There have been
    numerous delays in construction and completion of the project.
    There has been contamination of mold at the new site in April
    of 1998, and I am told that this mold contamination was
    preventable. Obviously, it was not prevented. The child care
    board of directors has been given numerous projected completion
    dates by your office and none of these commitments have been
    met.
        To date, construction remains incomplete. No work has been
    done at the site since August of 1998 and mold remediation has
    not been initiated, as projected by the Architect's staff for
    February to April of 1999.
        Now, the questions. Can you explain the reason or reasons
    for the significant delay in completion? Let us start with that
    one.
        Mr. Hantman. Sure. When the mold was first discovered in
    the building, it clearly should have been preventable. It
    should not have happened. The contractor has accepted
    responsibility for that. He had not put the flashing on top of
    the copings.
        We have a cavity wall. It is a brick construction on the
    outside and block on the inside with an air space between. So,
    because we had very heavy wind and rain during that period of
    time in April and preceding that period, water got into some
    portions of the building that was under construction.
        At that point in time it was on schedule. What happened was
    we were concerned about this. We had many meetings with the
    people at the Senate, with the board. We determined that what
    we needed to do was to get a mold remediation program defined,
    do inspections, do tests.
        We hired specialists in this area of contamination. The
    board also hired somebody. We got the NIH, National Institute
    of Health, involved as well to take a look, to have the best
    minds involved, because clearly once you start talking about a
    mold which might have potentially health-related issues to it,
    you wanted to make sure that you got the right program to go
    ahead.
        Once the tests were taken and in fact the mold was
    identified, the specification needed to be determined as to
    what needs to be done to remediate it, what needs to be taken
    out, etcetera. It was found that the sheetrock--basically, this
    mold grows on cellulose-based products. The sheetrock on the
    interior wall surfaces was contaminated up to about six or
    eight inches above the baseboard, and not an awful lot more
    than that.
        The issue here was that the board had been pressing the
    Architect to do the work himself to remediate it, where the
    responsibility from our perspective and from a legal
    perspective basically lay with the contractor. So what we have
    done is to have the contractor--the contractor in fact is on
    the site today with three bidders who have been approved by the
    board's experts as well as our experts as people who are good
    in the field, able to do the work.
        He will pay those bidders if he selects one. We are aiming
    to have this available and completed for the fall semester. We
    have lost a year, there is no doubt about that. Part of the
    issue here has been our expert talking to the board's expert
    talking to the National Institute of Health and having them
    coordinate what they thought the appropriate way was so that
    people could finally say, yes, this is the way to pursue this.
        Senator Feinstein. Was it possible to carry out the work
    concurrently? Everything had to stop?
        Mr. Hantman. Basically, the building is not very far--
    Michael, maybe you want to respond to that.
        Mr. Turnbull. The building is not that far from completion,
    but in order not to contaminate anything else we want to do the
    mold remediation first before anything else is done, because we
    want to make sure that the building is totally clean, that our
    consultants and the board consultants have gone through and
    certified that they feel comfortable that the problem has been
    addressed, before we finish up.
        There is really not a lot left. We are 90 percent finished
    with that project.
        Mr. Hantman. So there are some windows to be installed,
    things of that nature. We need to pressure-test the exterior
    brickwork to make sure that there is no further leakage coming
    in. Then we will have to, once the contractor finishes his
    work, we will have to come in and do the interior work and
    things of that nature so that we are complete by August.

                  Senate employees child care center priority

        Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I
    would very much like to urge them to raise the priority of this
    project. I mean, it is something that is really important----
        Senator Bennett. It is one of the items that I was going to
    address myself, yes.
        Senator Feinstein (continuing). Employees. And it is rather
    disheartening to see this kind of thing happen, and everything
    just stops and you fall so far behind schedule. For me it is a
    priority and I hope it would be for you.
        Senator Bennett. Yes, yes, absolutely.
        Senator Feinstein. We might say, Mr. Architect, we will be
    watching.
        Mr. Hantman. Yes, ma'am, fully understood.
        Senator Bennett. To put it in perspective, this will become
    Senator Feinstein's Y2K.
        Senator Feinstein. My pet project. We will see if we can
    get it done.
        Mr. Hantman. If you would like a walk-through----
        Senator Feinstein. I would like a walk-through.
        Mr. Hantman. Let us do that.
        Senator Feinstein. I figure there is enough big wheels to
    take care of the dome. I will concentrate on the child care
    center.
        Mr. Hantman. We will arrange that.

                           Visitors center site plan

        Senator Feinstein. All right. Could I ask you with respect
    to the visitors center. I heard the presentation at the Rules
    Committee and was really impressed. Really, I sort of came to
    the conclusion at least that we should move ahead with the
    major one.
        Could you just quickly indicate, is the siting firm? Where
    are you on the design of the center? What is the time line now?
    What are the estimates of funding, and when will you be
    releasing them?
        Mr. Hantman. As I indicated earlier, Senator, I will be
    sending to you next week, it is called an obligation plan, as
    required by the legislation. The Senate in negotiations with
    the House put some language in there that indicated that
    everything that had been done before that formed the foundation
    for the 1995 plan basically needed to be revisited and
    validated, which is why I talk about a worst case schedule.
        We have had some people talk to us about: Is it in the
    right place? Maybe we should do it on the west front? Maybe it
    should be at Postal Square. Maybe it should not be here at all.
    If that kind of direction is given to us during this first
    phase, I do not know how long the process will take.
        Senator Feinstein. Let me just quickly ask you:
    Architecturally, do you think the siting is correct?
        Mr. Hantman. Absolutely, I think it is in the right place.

                            Visitors center security

        Senator Feinstein. And you do not believe it presents a
    threat to the Capitol? Some of those questions have been
    raised.
        Mr. Hantman. Relative to--we have so many doors coming in
    the Capitol right now. With the Capitol Police sitting here
    earlier today, we could have talked about the fact that
    visitors can come through so many entrances right now, it is a
    problem for the members of the police force to know who is a
    Senator, who is a Congressperson in the first place. But when
    you get 95 percent of your visitors who are unknown coming
    through multiple doors, the idea of how do you protect at any
    level of standoff from the entrances or recognize that this
    person is unknown to you, this is a staff door, you should not
    be coming here.
        The concept of the visitors center is that 95 percent of
    the people who come to the Capitol will be coming through the
    visitors center, which is a standoff distance of 300 feet from
    the Capitol itself. That is where the magnetometers will be.
    That is where our restudy really does have to focus to heighten
    our ability to do quick and respectful clearance and prepping
    of people before they get into the visitors center, which would
    give them free access to the Capitol basically beyond there.
        So from a police perspective it makes eminently good sense
    to do it and to give us a nice way for all of our visitors to
    come in to see the Capitol to be oriented to what they are
    going to see when they get in, what the rotunda is all about,
    what the history of our legislative government is all about.
        I talked before about there really being two projects here.
    One of them is the physical facility itself. The other is what
    goes into it, which is why I have suggested at past hearings
    that what we probably want to do--and I am not sure how
    leadership would feel about it--is in parallel with the
    construction documents and the planning of the physical
    facility, which if the existing 1995 plan is found to be
    acceptable by the many committees that we are going before, we
    will go back and we will talk about why the west front is not
    the appropriate place to do it.
        But I plan to do that expeditiously, because I think we are
    in the right location. I think the security issues are being
    addressed very clearly. I think it meets a lot of the needs,
    including circulation from one side of the Capitol to the other
    that this helps expedite, as well as garbage removal, which is
    done in the open right now. All of these issues are addressed,
    I think, very well in this plan.
        But there are many open issues and the letter that I will
    give you indicates what some of those open issues are and what
    we plan to do during this study phase, this planning phase
    which is mandated by the legislation.
        Subsequent to the planning phase, once we get approval to
    move ahead, then we would get into, according to the
    legislation, again an engineering phase, a design phase, a
    construction phase. Quite frankly, engineering and design
    architecture are one phase and I am recommending that we
    eliminate a separate milestone which really does not make a
    whole lot of sense.
        The question of how this is all reviewed at each step of
    the way is important. If we are validating the existing design
    and making changes as necessary for security and what other
    issues that leadership may determine needs to be incorporated
    or modified, the schedule will be a lot shorter than if we
    start from ground zero on the west front, which will not work,
    or another location yet that some folks can bring up.
        So it is a question of how loose the dart-throwing gets,
    and I would like to have a very tight schedule so that we can
    move ahead with something that is very security-related.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I was very favorably
    impressed in Rules when we had that presentation. I forget when
    it was, but it was last year some time. I thought that it is
    really a good start.
        Of course, a lot was really, I think, learned in the
    killing that took place in the Capitol, because the people at
    the magnetometers had no chance. There was no ability to spot
    him coming in, no ability to see him draw his weapon.
        Mr. Hantman. Exactly.
        Senator Feinstein. So those sight lines that you mentioned
    are so important.

                               Visitor entrances

        Mr. Hantman. They are. In fact, Senator Warner had brought
    that up with us while he still had his tenure as chair of that
    committee. One of the things we are looking at is, he had
    suggested investigating how, for the Senate office buildings as
    a start, we could take the magnetometers and move them outside
    the physical structure, because if something blows up inside
    the building what kind of structural damage would be done.
        One of the things we are looking at doing is, he had tasked
    us with on the Russell Building doing a vestibule adjacent to
    the main stairs. We are looking for additional dollars on that
    to reprogram the funds so that we can design that as the
    prototype or at least the model of what we might be able to do
    at Dirksen and Hart to also move some of these facilities
    outside the building. It is more difficult there.
        Senator Feinstein. Particularly this building, if you
    notice you can come in and you are right there. If anybody is
    packing anything, the people at the magnetometers have no
    chance.
        Mr. Hantman. Part of that problem is going to come down to
    an administrative decision by leadership: Are we going to
    direct all members--not all members, but all visitors, to a
    single door where they can be screened, and still have member
    doors, staff doors, so that our business is not interrupted? If
    you are willing to take that step, this makes sense. If you are
    not willing to take that step and visitors can come into any
    door anyway, are we doing the right thing? Does it really
    impact us?
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Bennett. There was one solution which I hope does
    not go forward, that we simply declare Capitol Hill a national
    park and move.
        Senator Feinstein. I think you are safe on that.
        Senator Bennett. Take the Senate and the House and build a
    secure place for them entirely off Capitol Hill, and then just
    say, we turn this over to the visitors entirely.

                                Parking garages

        Mr. Hantman. One other point that I did not discuss was the
    issue of parking garages. We had talked before about the
    legislative garage, the Russell Garage, and the pending
    improvement of it, whether or not that garage should be
    expanded, things of that nature.
        In presenting our information again to Senator Warner at
    Rules Committee, I think there was agreement that what we
    should look at and what we are requesting is the ability to
    reprogram funds from that legislative garage to take a look at
    the first increments of a possible garage on what is called
    Site 724, Block 724, which is just to the east of the police
    building.
        A 500-car garage could be created on the eastern end of
    that block as a first element, and if the Senate needed the
    spaces or we decided that we do not want parking on Capitol
    Square or the streets, we could ultimately build something like
    a 1,500-car garage 3 levels below grade on that site, with the
    provision that ultimately if the Senate needed more structures
    it could be built on top of that. So we are hoping that we will
    get clearance so that we can begin to look more seriously about
    that site as a possible garage.
        There has been some discussion about possibly putting off
    the restoration of the Russell Garage for a couple of years
    until that is in place, so that we do not inconvenience the
    folks who are parking currently in the legislative garage.

                                  Fire safety

        Senator Bennett. One last quick question. The status of the
    smoke detector installation, the Senate side of the Capitol?
        Mr. Hantman. Amita?
        Sorry. Amita Poole is our Superintendent of the Capitol.
        Ms. Poole. We have just completed putting in the backbone
    for the new fire alarm system and starting Monday of this
    coming week we will be installing the smoke detectors in areas
    throughout the Senate side where wiring is complete.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Bennett. There will be some additional questions
    that will be submitted for your response.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Architect for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                         Additional Committee Questions
             reengineering in the house and senate office buildings
        Question. In your testimony you indicate that significant re-
    engineering has already occurred in your agency and cite the
    consolidation of shops within both the House and Senate office
    buildings which has reduced the number of supervisors. What shops were
    consolidated and how many supervisors were reduced?
        Answer. In the Capitol Building separate House and Senate side
    Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) shops were
    consolidated. In both the Senate and House Office Buildings the second
    and third shifts of the HVAC and Plumbing operations were consolidated.
    Grounds maintenance activities of the Library Buildings and Grounds and
    Supreme Court were consolidated under the supervision of the Capitol
    Grounds. These and other initiatives have reduced the number of
    supervisory positions from 306 in January 1998 to 300 as of March 1999.
                            k-9 facility renovation
        Question. What is the status of the K-9 facility renovation?
        Answer. The new K-9 facility is 95 percent complete. Remaining work
    includes the installation of the heating and air-conditioning unit,
    installation of ductwork, installing the ceiling in the food
    preparation area, completion of exterior painting, completing the
    installation of the kennel fencing, and site seeding. Barring any
    significant weather problems, the facility will be completed by April
    2, 1999.
                               fort meade project
        Question. When will the Ft. Meade project be completed and
    available for occupancy?
        Answer. Anticipating the approval of the pending reprogramming
    request, a contract award is planned for April 1999. Based on the April
    award, completion of the first book storage module is scheduled for
    July of 2000.
                    aoc financial and budget status reports
        Question. The Architect of the Capital (AOC) has yet to provide
    certain basic reports, such as quarterly financial and budget status
    reports, that the Committee has requested over the past several years.
    Why hasn't the AOC responded to these requests? How and when will the
    AOC provide better financial reports to the committee? When does the
    AOC plan to be fully responsive to this request for financial and
    budget status reports? What plans does the AOC have to provide this
    type of information while it is using its interim financial management
    system? Does the AOC plan to reconcile this information to its budget
    submission?
        Answer. With the implementation of the new Financial Management
    System, the AOC expects to fully comply with the Committee's request
    for quarterly financial statements and budget status reports and to
    provide a reconciliation of the information reflected on these reports
    with the budget submission. We are using GAO's guidance to develop the
    specific requirements for the requested reports in our Request For
    Proposal (RFP) process and we will confirm the requirement with the
    Committee staff prior to issuing the RFP. With the new system we also
    expect to be more responsive to any new requests for information since
    the new system will contain modern report writing tools.
        For the interim period, prior to the implementation of the new FMS,
    we plan to prepare the requested budget status reports and the
    reconciliations with the budget submission by preparing spreadsheet
    based reports containing data from several sources. Upon confirming the
    reporting requirements with GAO and the Committee over the next few
    weeks, we will be able to develop the spreadsheets and take steps to
    begin capturing any currently unavailable required information. We plan
    to come to closure on this issue, and have an agreed to interim
    solution by the end of April, 1999.
        We apologize for not being as responsive as necessary on this issue
    and we will work hard towards meeting your reporting requests as
    quickly as possible. The AOC spent several months in early 1998 working
    with the GAO to create the requested reports based on the reports that
    the GAO provides the Senate. We had originally created a Budget Status
    Report to address this need. However, this report has been determined
    to be inadequate for the Committee's needs due to the combining of
    current and prior year financial information and the lack of project
    status information.
                         annual and multi-year projects
        Question. What is the total number of annual projects funded in
    fiscal year 1999? What number of those projects have been started? What
    number have been completed?
        Answer. A total of 55 annual projects were funded in fiscal year
    1999. All of the projects are in various stages of either construction,
    design or specification development, or procurement. At this time, none
    of the projects are considered 100 percent complete.
        Question. What is the total number of multi-year projects that the
    AOC currently has underway? How many of those projects have been
    started?
        Answer. The AOC has 98 multi-year projects currently underway and
    the majority are under construction. Of the 98 projects, 21 have not
    had funds obligated against them. Nineteen of the 21 projects are
    either in design or specification development, procurement, or are
    awaiting client or oversight approval to proceed.
                                  y2k program
        Question. What has been spent to date on your Y2K program, and what
    was requested in your 2000 budget?
        Answer. The AOC has spent a total of $2,537,000 on Y2K programs.
    The significant projects that funds have been spent on include the
    replacement of the accounting system, upgrading the procurement system,
    replacement of the work order system and replacement of noncompliant
    personal computers. It is anticipated that an additional $103,000 will
    be spent on Y2K system initiatives from currently available funds. The
    AOC is requesting $1,444,000 from funds appropriated to the General
    Accounting Office for Y2K compliance and contingency planning
    activities.
                               senate restaurants
        Question. Last year you predicted that the Senate restaurants would
    be $200,000 in the black in 1998 and $600,000 in the black in 1999.
    What was the financial balance in 1998 and what do you currently
    project for 1999 and 2000?
        Answer. The year end financial statements for fiscal year 1998
    (which included appropriated funds and revolving funds) for the Senate
    Restaurants indicates a loss of $607,865. Included in this loss is the
    one time expense for the buyout of $753,282. This expense includes
    approximately $87,300 in terminal leave which would not have been
    charged as well as an increase in replacement labor (approximately
    $70,500) while the Restaurant was being reorganized. The net loss would
    have been approximately $450,100.
        As we have continually noted with the Architect of the Capitol's
    Re-engineering Plan, the savings from the buyouts offered are not
    realized until the following year. Currently, the Senate Restaurants
    project a profit of $261,000 for 1999. Included in the operating
    expenses is the repayment of a contingent fund loan of $275,000
    provided to cover the balance of buyout payments which occurred in
    fiscal year 1999.
        This profit is based on the current operating configuration of the
    Restaurants. We are actively working with the Rules Committee to
    finalize the services offered within the Restaurants and only a
    positive impact on the financial statements is planned.
                           russell courtyard boxwoods
        Question. Please explain why the English Boxwood plants in the
    Russell Courtyard were destroyed. What are your plans for replanting
    the area where the Boxwoods were removed? What are your plans for the
    English Boxwood's that remain in the Russell Courtyard?
        Answer. The boxwoods have overgrown the walkways, impeding the
    passageways for pedestrians, and are in need of replacement. In fact, a
    project was included in the AOC's fiscal year 1998 budget request to
    Renovate and Restore the Russell Courtyard which included the
    replacement of the overgrown boxwoods with smaller ones. This project
    was actually funded by a fiscal year 1997 reprogramming but placed on
    hold because of the then proposed use of the Courtyard. While the
    boxwoods were removed to make way for constructing a building that will
    provide temporary ``swing space'' for various Senate committees during
    renovation of the Dirksen Building, they were slated for removal and
    replacement in any event. We have looked at the option of heavy pruning
    to restore pedestrian access to the walkways, but the appearance of the
    boxwoods would be ruined.
        Accordingly, after the ``swing space'' facility is demolished, we
    plan to remove the remaining boxwoods and replace them all with
    appropriately-sized three to four foot high boxwoods, placed six feet
    away from the edges of the walks. Appropriate annual maintenance
    pruning will assure that the boxwoods' growth is controlled in an
    aesthetic manner. This approach will restore the beauty of the
    courtyard's plantings while improving pedestrian access to the
    walkways.
                              financial statements
        Question. What year will financial statements be available for a
    full audit?
        Answer. FMS is scheduled to be implemented by the end of fiscal
    year 2001. Once FMS is implemented auditable financial statements will
    be available on a monthly accounting period basis. Since FMS is being
    implemented during the end of fiscal year 2001, the first full fiscal
    year for being able to produce an auditable financial statement from
    FMS is fiscal year 2002.
                          financial management system
        Question. Arthur Andersen has spent five months studying AOC's
    financial management system requirements and reviewing financial
    software packages available on the GSA schedule. Although not subject
    to the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA), will the
    AOC financial systems comply?
        Answer. Yes, the financial management system that is purchased and
    implemented by the AOC will comply with Federal financial management
    systems requirements applicable to Federal accounting standards and the
    Standard General Ledger (SGL) at the transaction level as required by
    FFMIA. The AOC considers the requirement for the system to be compliant
    with Federal standards as the most important criteria for selecting a
    financial software package. The AOC is considering only the systems
    offered by the eleven vendors on the GSA Financial Management System
    Software (FMSS) schedule since all of these systems have been certified
    by GSA as being compliant with Federal financial standards. In
    addition, the AOC plans to implement the new system with no software
    modifications, allowing easier migrations to future federally mandated
    software upgrades.
        Question. Will the purchase of your financial management system
    require new hardware? If so, have you done a cost benefit analysis? How
    much funding will be required?
        Answer. The AOC's Business Process Re-engineering plan calls for
    the agency to move all existing applications and the planned integrated
    financial, procurement, human and facilities management systems to a
    Unix/Oracle based platform. This platform was selected because of its
    well documented reliability, scalability, and performance. The
    Information Resource Management (IRM) division has determined that the
    Unix/Oracle platform is a prudent investment to service all
    applications. Funding of the new Unix/Oracle environment is forecasted
    at $4.01 million over the next 5 years. The IRM fiscal year 2000
    operating budget request includes the first increment of $790,000.
    Below are the projected costs by fiscal year:

    Fiscal year:
        2000......................................................  $790,000
        2001......................................................   855,000
        2002......................................................   785,000
        2003......................................................   770,000
        2004......................................................   810,000

        Question. Do the financial packages recommended by Arthur Andersen
    also meet the AOC's operational requirements, such as facilities
    management, project tracking and costing?
        Answer. The focus of the Arthur Andersen analysis was on the AOC's
    core financial management requirements, inventory requirements and
    procurement analysis. The requirements for facilities management and
    project tracking/costing was limited to the financial related
    requirements rather than the operational requirements. It was assumed
    that the operational requirements for facilities management and project
    tracking would be performed in a separate system or a module outside
    the core financial system. The analysis indicated if a vendor offered a
    facilities management module or a project tracking module, but there
    was no evaluation performed on whether these modules met AOC
    operational requirements in these areas.
        Question. You are purchasing a financial management system, but
    your requirements also include procurement capabilities which are
    nonfinancial in nature. What weight do you put on your financial
    requirements as opposed to your miscellaneous requirements? Will you
    select a less desirable financial system because of these other
    requirements? If not, how will you distinguish and rate each
    requirement?
        Answer. The financial requirements will carry the most weight in
    the selection of a financial management system for the AOC while the
    procurement requirements will carry very little weight in the selection
    process. The actual criteria that will be used to evaluate vendor
    proposals is currently under development and will be completed prior to
    issuing the Request for Proposal. In order to ensure that we do not
    select a less desirable system, we will coordinate the evaluation
    criteria with the GAO. Additionally, the GAO is going to provide staff
    assistance throughout the evaluation and implementation of FMS.
    Although still under development, the criteria that are expected to
    carry the most weight in the selection of a financial package are as
    follows: Compliant with Federal financial standards; operates in a 3-
    tiered client server environment; contains inventory and project
    functionality; provides easy access to information; provides modern
    workflow capabilities; and vendor track record in implementing the
    software.
        The AOC desires to select a modern system that is compliant with
    Federal financial standards, can be easily integrated with other AOC
    systems and will be supported by the vendor in the long term.
        Question. Will these systems produce the reports required by the
    Senate Appropriations Committee?
        Answer. The specifications for the reports required by the Senate
    Appropriations Committee will be included in the Statement of Work for
    the procurement and implementation of the Financial Management System.
    These reports will be available from FMS when FMS is implemented in
    late fiscal year 2001. In addition, the AOC plans to implement a user
    friendly reporting tool to allow easy access to information and the
    production of ad-hoc reports.
        Question. Do the vendors of these systems certify that they are Y2K
    compliant?
        Answer. The AOC is considering only the financial management
    systems that are certified by GSA as being compliant with the Joint
    Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) requirements. The
    JFMIP technical requirements include requirements for the system to be
    Y2K compliant. In addition, the AOC will include a requirement in the
    Statement of Work that all date fields contain a four character year.
        Question. Do these systems have good funds control over project and
    job costs? How will the funds control portion of your financial system
    work?
        Answer. The AOC is considering only the financial management
    systems that are certified by GSA as being compliant with JFMIP
    requirements. The JFMIP requirements include funds control requirements
    to ensure the systems provide basic funding controls over commitments,
    obligations, and expenditures. The AOC will include additional funds
    control requirements in the Statement of Work to provide for the
    capability to establish project and sub-project budgets that are in
    addition to the appropriation budgets. The AOC expects to implement the
    Financial Management System with up to four levels of appropriation
    funds control with the levels differentiated by combinations of fund
    codes, program codes, organization codes, project codes and object
    codes. The AOC expects to implement two levels of project funds control
    to budget by project phase and the activities within a project phase.
        Question. Did your contractor require live demonstrations from each
    vendor in a production environment? If not, how could your contractor
    determine what vendor had the best system?
        Answer. The Arthur Andersen report compared the AOC's stated
    requirements to the software packages offered by vendors on the GSA
    FMSS Schedule. The purpose of the analysis was to identify the packages
    that potentially meet AOC's stated needs. Three vendors were
    recommended, based on the ``down-select'' criteria provided by the AOC.
    An additional vendor was recommended because of being the historical
    market leader. The analysis did not include live demonstrations from
    the vendors. During the proposal process, the AOC will require the
    vendors to perform Operational Capabilities Demonstrations (OCD's) in a
    technical environment similar to AOC's environment. The detailed script
    for the OCD will be prepared by the FMS Project Director and
    coordinated with GAO. The results of the OCD will weigh heavily in the
    selection of a vendor.
        Question. Do these systems meet AOC business needs? If not, what
    amount of customization will be necessary, and what are the estimated
    costs?
        Answer. The Arthur Andersen report indicated that all 9 vendors on
    the GSA FMSS Schedule met AOC's core financial management requirements.
    The report also indicated that 3 vendors potentially meet AOC's
    inventory and procurement requirements in addition to the core
    financial management requirements. The AOC plans to implement the core
    financial system with no customization. No unique AOC financial
    requirements have been identified that would require customization of a
    core financial package. Whether the software packages meet all of the
    AOC's inventory and procurement needs will be determined during the
    procurement process. If the software packages perform the typical
    inventory and Federal procurement functions, there should be no need to
    perform customization. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    implementation of a Financial Management System does not include any
    funding for customization.
        Question. Has the AOC considered having another Legislative Branch
    agency cross service its financial operations instead of implementing
    its own financial system? Did you solicit bids from other Legislative/
    Executive agencies to cross service the AOC? How do you know that
    buying and implementing your own system is more cost beneficial than
    cross servicing?
        Answer. The AOC considered having another Legislative Branch agency
    cross service its financial operations instead of implementing a new
    financial system. Most of the Legislative Branch agencies are currently
    operating their financial systems in a main-frame environment with
    software that is near the end of its life cycle. The AOC did not want
    to incur significant implementation costs migrating to an older system,
    and then have to incur the costs again in a few years when the cross
    servicing agency migrated to a more modern system.
        Question. How many employees are devoted full time to the financial
    management system acquisition and implementation project? Have you
    budgeted for the increased financial management system staff in the
    current year? How much will this staff cost in the out years?
        Answer. Currently, there is a project director assigned full time
    to the project. Six additional staff will be hired gradually over the
    next 4-9 months in order to have the full project team on board when
    the software is purchased. Two of the additional staff are planned to
    be hired in July 1999, with the remaining coming on board in the first
    3 months of fiscal year 2000. The cost of the increase in staff for
    fiscal year 1999 is included in our budget. The cost of the staff in
    the initial out years is estimated at $400,000 per year. After the
    complete implementation of the system, the staff will be reduced to the
    resources required to maintain the system.
        Question. How confident are you with your procurement and
    implementation schedule for your financial management system?
        Answer. The AOC's current procurement schedule of purchasing a
    system by the end of calendar year 1999 is considered aggressive.
    Depending on the number of proposals received and ``down-selected''
    additional time may be necessary to evaluate the vendor proposals, and
    to conduct Operational Capabilities Demonstrations for each package
    under consideration.
        The AOC is confident in the implementation schedule of beginning
    production operations by the end of fiscal year 2001 as long as the
    procurement stays on schedule. A significant delay in the procurement
    would affect the implementation date.
        Question. What business practices will you change as a result of
    implementing a new financial system? What procedures/policy changes
    will you implement?
        Answer. The financial system that is purchased by the AOC is
    expected to provide the configuration flexibility to allow the AOC to
    continue its current business practices if desired. However, it is
    expected that the increase in functionality provided by the new system
    will lead to improvement of certain business practices. The actual
    changes that will occur will be determined during the configuration
    sessions with user groups during the beginning stages of the
    implementation. In order to limit the impact on users, the AOC may
    pursue implementing certain business process changes using a phased
    approach after the initial implementation. An example of a business
    process that will be changed is the ``requisition for goods and
    services'' process. The requisition process will be improved to
    transform a paper intensive process to a fully electronic process.
        Question. What staff changes, if any, do you believe will be
    necessary to implement and operate your new financial management
    system? How much will you save in staff years once you have automated
    your existing procedures?
        Answer. We have determined that additional staff of 6 people (plus
    a project director) is required to implement the Financial Management
    System. This level of staff assumes an implementation where
    considerable contractor support is utilized. The amount of staff
    required to maintain the system after it is implemented has not been
    determined, but it is expected to be less than the AOC staff required
    to implement the system.
        The implementation of a new Financial Management System is not
    expected to affect current staffing requirements in the AOC except in
    the Accounting Division. The Accounting Division may require 1-2
    additional professional staff because of the increase in workload
    required to maintain a standard general ledger, produce financial
    reports and perform reconciliations.
        The implementation of a new financial management system is not
    expected to save staff years. Any savings realized through the
    automation of manual processes will be offset by additional time spent
    on value added processes, such as providing better customer service or
    performing strategic analysis.
        Question. Have you done a skills requirement analysis to determine
    if existing staff will have the necessary skills to operate in a new
    automated environment? If so, what did that analysis reveal?
        Answer. A skills analysis to determine if existing staff have the
    necessary skills required by the new system has been performed for the
    technical staff, but not for the functional staff. The analysis for the
    functional staff is planned to be performed during this calendar year
    prior to the purchasing of the financial management system. Since the
    initial implementation of FMS will most likely involve only the current
    financial system users, it is assumed that the users will have the
    basic skills to operate an automated system. However, the AOC does plan
    to evaluate the users ability to operate in a ``windows and mouse''
    environment, and if necessary have users attend training classes in
    these areas. In addition, the AOC will also determine if the complexity
    of the new system requires higher level employees such as GS-0510
    accountants rather than GS-0525 accounting technicians.
        The AOC has determined that its technical staff lacks the required
    skills to operate in the new technical environment. In order to obtain
    the necessary skills, the AOC is in the process of hiring staff
    experienced in the new technology and is sending current staff to
    training. It is expected that the technical staff will have 6 months
    experience in the new technical environment by the time the financial
    management package is purchased. The AOC technical staff is then
    expected to receive on-the-job training from the contractor during the
    implementation of the system.
        Question. We recommended that you follow GAO guidance that your
    financial system project director report directly to the Architect.
    However, he reports to the CFO. What is your rationale for not
    accepting the GAO recommendation?
        Answer. The AOC established the organization structure for the
    financial system project director to report to the CFO since this is
    the reporting relationship typically used by Federal agencies. Although
    the AOC is not covered by the CFO Act of 1990, the act specifies that
    the agency CFO should oversee all financial management activities
    including the ``development and maintenance of an integrated agency
    accounting and financial management system''.
        In order to partially comply with the GAO recommendation that the
    financial system project director report directly to the Architect, the
    Architect has issued a Delegation of Authority making the financial
    system project director directly responsible for the proper
    implementation of the financial management system. The financial
    management system project director will continue to report to the CFO,
    but will meet with the Architect on a weekly basis to discuss the
    project status and outstanding issues relative to the implementation of
    the new system. The financial system project director will be the
    primary contact of the Architect for all financial system
    implementation and integration matters.
        Question. You intend to interface some of your present systems with
    the new financial management system. What systems will that be and how
    much will it cost to develop interfaces? When do you anticipate having
    those interfaces completed?
        Answer. The new financial management system will interface with the
    following systems: Human Resource System (currently the USDA payroll
    system); Computer Assisted Facilities Management System (CAFM); and
    Project Tracking System.
        The interface with the existing payroll system will be implemented
    along with the initial implementation of the financial system by the
    end of fiscal year 2001. A preliminary estimate of $160,000 (1,280
    hours) has been developed for contractor support in the design, coding
    and testing of the payroll interface. This estimate assumes the
    interface will be similar to the current interface which updates the
    financial system with payroll and benefit costs on a bi-weekly basis.
    The estimate does not include any additional costs that may be charged
    to the AOC by the USDA for changes in the data format.
        Estimates for the development of interfaces with the CAFM system
    and the Project Tracking System have not been developed. The interfaces
    to these systems are expected to be implemented during the latter
    stages of the implementation towards the end of fiscal year 2003. The
    CAFM system is currently in the beginning stages of implementation at
    the AOC and the current project tracking system may be replaced prior
    to the end of fiscal year 2003. The cost estimates for the CAFM and
    Project Tracking interfaces will be developed by the end of fiscal year
    2000 and included in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
        Question. Will the AOC seek funding in the future to enhance
    existing non-financial systems? If so, how much, when, and for what
    systems?
        Answer. The following table reflects the AOC's fiscal year 2000
    budget request and future fiscal year requests for non-financial system
    installations. These systems include a Human Resources system, the
    continuation of the installation of the Computer Aided Facilities
    Management (CAFM) system, and the upgrade and continued expansion of
    the agencies computer network. The five year total is $12,282,000. The
    Network Installation and Upgrade project will support all current
    system and e-mail applications as well as the new or expanded Financial
    Management, Human Resources and CAFM systems.

                                                [In thousand of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                              System                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2000       2001       2002       2003       2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Human Resources..........................................      3,612        800        800        800        800
    CAFM.....................................................        350        350        350  .........  .........
    Network Installation & Upgrade...........................      1,660        490        390      1,340        540
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Total..............................................      5,622      1,640      1,540      2,140      1,340
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Thank you very much. It has been very informative. We
    appreciate your responsiveness and congratulate you on the
    progress that you have made.
        Mr. Hantman. Thank you very much.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Bennett and Feinstein.

                          JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

    STATEMENT OF HON. BILL ROTH, VICE CHAIRMAN
    ACCOMPANIED BY LINDY L. PAULL, CHIEF OF STAFF

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. The subcommittee will come to order.
        We welcome you to our second hearing on the fiscal year
    2000 budget for the legislative branch of Government. We have
    three panels testifying this morning: the Joint Committee on
    Taxation, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Office of
    Compliance.
        Our first witness will be Senator Bill Roth on behalf of
    the Joint Committee on Taxation, joined by Lindy Paull, the
    Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee. The budget request is
    for $6,256,000 for fiscal year 2000. This includes a cost-of-
    living adjustment for staff and a slight increase of $67,000
    for non-personnel expenses.
        Senator Feinstein, we welcome you. You braved your way
    through the storm as the rest of us did, and we are honored
    that you are here. Do you have any opening statement?
        Senator Feinstein. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, except to
    welcome the distinguished Senator to our esteemed subcommittee.
        Senator Bennett. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to hearing
    from you.
        Senator Roth. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Feinstein. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear today
    before the subcommittee on behalf of the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation request for the Joint Committee on Taxation.
        As you well know, Bill Archer and I have submitted a
    written statement, and I ask that this written statement be
    made part of the written record.
        Senator Bennett. Without objection.
        Senator Roth. Mr. Chairman, I will just make a couple of
    brief points regarding this appropriation request. Actually you
    have touched on them already, but I will review them once more.
        As you said, the Joint Committee is requesting an
    appropriation for fiscal year 2000 of $6,256,000. This
    represents a $290,600 increase over the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation. This is a 4.87 percent increase. As you pointed
    out, Mr. Chairman, $223,000 of this amount will be allocated to
    cost-of-living increases for personnel expenses, and the
    remaining $67,000 will be allocated to proposed increases in
    non-personnel expenses.
        Mr. Chairman, increased responsibilities have been assigned
    to the Joint Committee under the IRS Restructuring and Reform
    Act that was passed last summer. The Joint Committee estimated
    during consideration of the IRS Reform Act that these
    additional responsibilities would require approximately
    $290,000 of additional staff resources annually.
        The Joint Committee is requesting 1.5 more FTE's for fiscal
    year 2000 to hire additional staff economists. These economists
    will work on revenue estimates so that the Joint Committee is
    able to respond to more Member requests. I think Lindy said we
    are responding roughly in the 80's.
        Ms. Paull. Right, 80 percent.
        Senator Roth. 80 percent.
        In addition, the additional employees will allow the Joint
    Committee to devote more staff resources to the effort to
    develop macroeconomic estimating capability. I think that is a
    very important development.
        Senator Feinstein. You did say macro.
        Senator Roth. Yes, ma'am. And I think they are making some
    real progress, but they have a ways to go yet.

                 report on the state of the Federal tax System

        Under the IRS Reform Act, the Joint Committee is required
    to report at least once each Congress to the Senate Finance
    Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee on the overall
    state of the Federal tax system and to make specific
    recommendations for changes to the tax laws. The IRS Reform Act
    provided that this report is to be done subject to amounts
    being specifically appropriated to the Joint Committee for this
    purpose.
        The fiscal year 2000 appropriation request does not contain
    any amount for this purpose. If the subcommittee decides to
    fund this added responsibility, the Joint Committee estimates
    an additional annual appropriation of $200,000 and three
    additional FTE's would be required.
        Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein, I want to thank the
    subcommittee for its continued recognition of the important
    role the Joint Committee plays in the development of revenue
    legislation. I hope that the subcommittee will continue to
    support the operation of the Joint Committee for fiscal year
    2000.

                               prepared statement

        I will be happy to respond to any questions that you may
    have. If I do not know the answer, which will probably be the
    case, I will call on Lindy.
        [The statement follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Representative Bill Archer and Senator Bill Roth
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit this written
    testimony to the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch of the Senate
    Committee on Appropriations on behalf of the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation request for the Joint Committee on Taxation (the ``Joint
    Committee'').
        The funding we are requesting for the Joint Committee on Taxation
    represents the minimum amount necessary to finance the operations of
    the Joint Committee for fiscal year 2000. The Joint Committee provides
    essential services to the Congress that are not duplicated by any other
    Congressional or Executive Branch office. Failure to provide the
    requested funding will jeopardize the ability of the Joint Committee to
    provide these necessary services.
        We want to thank the Subcommittee for its continued recognition of
    the important role that the Joint Committee plays in the development of
    revenue legislation. We are pleased that the Subcommittee has
    repeatedly acknowledged the needs of the Joint Committee, and we hope
    that the Subcommittee will continue to support the operations of the
    Joint Committee for fiscal year 2000.
        Key points relating to the fiscal year 2000 appropriation request
    are as follows:
      --The Joint Committee is requesting an appropriation for fiscal year
            2000 of $6,256,000, an increase over the fiscal year 1999
            appropriation of $290,600. This represents a 4.87 percent
            increase over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. $223,000 of
            this amount will be allocated to cost-of-living increases for
            personnel expenses and the remaining $67,600 will be allocated
            to proposed increases in nonpersonnel expenses.
      --The Joint Committee's appropriation for fiscal year 1999 of
            $5,965,400 is less than the $6,019,000 appropriated to the
            Joint Committee for fiscal year 1995. Despite this reduction in
            the Joint Committee's appropriation, increased responsibilities
            have been assigned to the Joint Committee under the Internal
            Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (the ``IRS
            Reform Act''). The Joint Committee estimated during
            consideration of the IRS Reform Act that these additional
            responsibilities would require approximately $290,000 of
            additional staff resources annually.
      --The Joint Committee is requesting an additional 1.5 FTEs for fiscal
            year 2000 to hire additional staff economists. These economists
            will assist in the preparation of revenue estimates so that the
            Joint Committee is able to respond to more Member requests. In
            addition, the additional FTEs will enable the Joint Committee
            to devote more staff resources to the effort to develop
            macroeconomic estimating capability.
      --Under section 4002(a) of the IRS Reform Act, subject to amounts
            being specifically appropriated for this purpose, the Joint
            Committee is required to report at least once each Congress to
            the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways
            and Means on the overall state of the Federal tax system,
            together with recommendations with respect to possible
            simplification proposals and other matters relating to the
            administration of the Federal tax system. We leave to the
            Subcommittee's discretion whether to appropriate additional
            amounts to the Joint Committee for this purpose for fiscal year
            2000. The Joint Committee estimates that this additional
            responsibility would require an additional annual appropriation
            of $200,000 and 3 FTE's.
        Additional details relating to this appropriation request are
    provided below.
               summary of fiscal year 2000 appropriation request
        The following summarizes the Joint Committee's appropriation
    request for fiscal year 2000:

    Personnel Compensation........................................$5,656,000
    Nonpersonnel Funding:
        Travel....................................................    12,000
        Rent, communications, and utilities.......................    33,000
        Printing............................................................
        Other services............................................    29,000
        Supplies and materials....................................   154,000
        Equipment.................................................   277,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total fiscal year 2000 request.......................... 6,256,000
               details of fiscal year 2000 appropriation request
    Personnel Expenses
        Cost-of-living.--A 3.3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for
    calendar year 1999 and a 4.4 percent cost-of-living adjustment for
    calendar year 2000 are requested. This request would increase the
    appropriation for personnel expenses for fiscal year 2000 by $223,000
    over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
        Additional FTEs.--An increase of 1.5 additional FTEs is requested
    for the Joint Committee for fiscal year 2000. These additional FTEs
    would be used to hire additional Joint Committee staff economists to
    assist in the preparation of revenue estimates to respond to Member
    requests. These additional FTEs would not only enable the Joint
    Committee to respond to more Member requests, but would also allow the
    Joint Committee to devote additional resources to the effort to develop
    the capability to incorporate macroeconomic effects in Joint Committee
    revenue estimates for major tax legislation.
        Further, increased responsibilities have been assigned to the Joint
    Committee as a result of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and
    Reform Act of 1998 (the ``IRS Reform Act''). Under the IRS Reform Act,
    the Joint Committee is required to prepare a complexity analysis of all
    revenue provisions of widespread applicability to individuals and small
    businesses. In addition, the IRS Reform Act requires the Joint
    Committee to provide staffing and an annual report in connection with
    annual joint hearings of six Congressional committees on the operations
    of the Internal Revenue Service. These hearings will occur during
    calendar years 1999 through 2003. Finally, the IRS Reform Act mandated
    that the Joint Committee conduct a study of the present-law protections
    relating to disclosure of tax returns and tax return information. This
    study is due January 22, 2000, which will require the Joint Committee
    to expend personnel resources on this effort during a portion of fiscal
    year 2000. These additional responsibilities will place a significant
    drain on the personnel resources of the Joint Committee. During
    consideration of the IRS Reform Act, the Joint Committee estimated that
    these added responsibilities would require approximately $290,000 of
    personnel resources per year.
        No additional appropriation is requested to fund these additional
    FTEs. The FTEs can be funded out of the requested personnel
    appropriation through reclassification of certain Joint Committee
    positions and the replacement of departing higher paid employees with
    entry level professional staff.
        If the Subcommittee approves these additional FTE's, the Joint
    Committee's staffing level of 65 FTEs would be less than the level of
    FTE's authorized for the Joint Committee in any fiscal year between
    1980 and 1996.
    Nonpersonnel Expenses
        In general.--An increase of $67,600 is requested for fiscal year
    2000 relative to the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. In addition, the
    Joint Committee's expenses in various categories have been reallocated
    to reflect more accurately the actual expenses that are anticipated in
    these categories.
        Rent, communications, and utilities.--The Joint Committee request
    proposes to reallocate $55,000 from this category to other categories
    for fiscal year 2000. The amount requested in this category for fiscal
    year 2000 represents an accurate estimate of the actual expenses that
    the Joint Committee will incur.
        Other services.--It is requested that $29,000 be reallocated to
    this category from other categories for fiscal year 2000. The increase
    in this category is attributable to projected increased needs of the
    Joint Committee to secure consulting services in connection with the
    efforts to develop macroeconomic estimating capabilities. This project
    requires substantial resources. In addition to the work of Joint
    Committee staff, it is necessary for the Joint Committee to contract
    with macroeconomic forecasting firms to assist in the development of
    economic models that will permit the calculation of such macroeconomic
    effects.
        Further, the needs of the Members for immediate responses to
    requests for revenue estimates and the substantial volume of requests
    that the Joint Committee staff receives each year places limitations on
    the ability of the Joint Committee staff to perform certain work
    necessary for the preparation of revenue estimates. To perform
    efficiently, the Joint Committee staff has found it necessary to
    contract from time to time with certain private sector organizations to
    do work that the Joint Committee staff does not have the time or the
    resources to do otherwise.
        Finally, the Joint Committee may find it necessary during fiscal
    year 2000 to contract for consultant services in connection with Joint
    Committee plans to update its document tracking system software and
    hardware; this project is discussed more fully in the equipment
    category below.
        Supplies and materials.--It is requested that $24,000 be
    reallocated to this category from other categories for fiscal year
    2000. The requested increase in this category is attributable to the
    cost of purchasing new on-line information resources for the use of the
    Joint Committee professional staff. It is essential that the Joint
    Committee staff have available the most sophisticated research tools
    available for tax professionals. This expense ensures that the Joint
    Committee staff has access to the same resources that private sector
    tax lawyers and economists utilize on a daily basis. The amount
    requested for fiscal year 2000 in this category reflects a relatively
    modest increase over the actual expenses for fiscal year 1998; the
    amount allocated to this category for fiscal year 1999 is below
    anticipated actual expenses.
        Equipment.--An increase of $69,600 is requested for fiscal year
    2000 over fiscal year 1999 for the purchases of new equipment.
    Anticipated expenses in this category include $60,000 for hardware and
    software maintenance; $50,000 for Xerox maintenance and usage costs;
    and $150,000 for the purchase of document scanners, CD-ROM writers, and
    other storage for expansions of the Joint Committee's document tracking
    system.
        In 1994, the Joint Committee implemented a computerized data base
    to track Member requests. The Joint Committee hopes to begin upgrades
    to this data base system during fiscal 1999 that will lead to the
    purchase of computer hardware (such as scanners) and software during
    fiscal year 2000 to implement these upgrades. Once the upgrades are
    complete, the Joint Committee will have the capability of maintaining a
    complete electronic record of each request received from a Member of
    Congress and to determine at any time the status of such request.
        The purchase of equipment represents the single largest item of
    nonpersonnel expenses for the Joint Committee. The large volume of
    documents that the Joint Committee is required to produce during the
    legislative process requires the use of sophisticated and
    technologically advanced computer and reproduction equipment. The Joint
    Committee staff finds it necessary to upgrade computer software,
    hardware, and reproduction machines frequently to ensure that Members
    receive adequate service.
     review of joint committee on taxation operations during calendar year
                                      1998
        Attachments A through E provide a summary of the activity of the
    Joint Committee staff for calendar year 1998. This included work on
    Committee and Conference Reports (Statements of Managers) for the
    revenue-related legislation considered by the House Committee on Ways
    and Means and/or the Senate Committee on Finance and conference action
    on revenue-related legislation. A list of these committee and
    conference reports is contained in Attachment A.
    Tax legislative reports
        Tax legislative reports worked on by the Joint Committee staff
    relating to legislation enacted in 1998 included:
      --Extension and modification of Highway Trust Fund tax provisions
            (revenue title in H.R. 2400, Transportation Equity Act for the
            21st Century).
      --Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (H.R.
            2676), which included major revisions of numerous IRS
            administration, taxpayer compliance and taxpayer rights
            provisions, revenue offsets, and technical corrections to
            recent tax legislation.
      --Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 (revenue provisions of
            H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
            Appropriations Act, 1999).
      --Internet Tax Freedom Act (S. 442 as reported by the Finance
            Committee, included in the conference report for H.R. 4328).
        The Joint Committee staff also worked on several other reports on
    tax legislation considered by the tax-writing committees in 1998 but
    not enacted. These included the following areas of tax legislation
    (also listed in Attachment A):
      --H.R. 1432 (revenue-offset provision relating to the employer
            deduction for severance pay in the African Growth and
            Opportunity Act), which was passed by the House.
      --H.R. 3249 (Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act), which was
            passed by the House.
      --H.R. 4250 (revenue-offset provisions in the Patient Protection Act
            of 1998), which was passed by the House.
      --H.R. 4579 (Tax Relief Act of 1998), which was passed by the House.
      --H.R. 4738 (Extension of Expiring Provisions and Other Tax Relief),
            which was passed by the House.
      --S. 1133 (Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act), which was
            reported by the Finance Committee and passed by the Senate as
            an amendment to H.R. 2646 (see below).
      --H.R. 2646 (Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998),
            the conference report for which was passed by the House and the
            Senate in 1998 but vetoed by the President.
      --S. 1415 (Tobacco Settlement), which was reported by the Finance
            Committee and considered by the Senate.
    JCT staff publications
        In addition to its work on committee and conference reports, the
    Joint Committee staff published 82 documents during 1998, including
    pamphlets and other documents prepared for committee hearings and
    markups and conference action (see Attachment B). Included in these
    documents was the General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in
    1998, a 320-page comprehensive explanation of tax legislation enacted
    in 1998, and also a Summary of Revenue Provisions Contained in
    Legislation Enacted During the 105th Congress.
        The 1998 staff publications included the Joint Committee staff's
    annual report on estimates of Federal tax expenditures (for fiscal
    years 1999-2003). Other publications included a staff study on tax
    amnesty proposals, analysis of proposals for restructuring of the
    Internal Revenue Service, analysis of individual effective marginal tax
    rates, proposals to reduce the marriage tax penalty, revenue provisions
    contained in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget, and issues
    relating to estate and gift taxes, the individual alternative minimum
    tax, capital gains, tax incentives for savings, tax provisions relating
    to health care and qualified pension plans, and tax complexity for
    small business.
    JCT staff investigations and refund review
        During 1998, the Joint Committee staff continued its investigation
    (started in 1997) of whether the Internal Revenue Service's (``IRS'')
    selection of tax-exempt organizations (Code secs. 501(c)(3) and
    501(c)(4)) and individuals associated with such organizations for audit
    has been politically motivated, including an analysis of the selection
    of such tax-exempt organizations for audit for reasons related to their
    alleged political or lobbying activities. This investigation represents
    an important exercise of the Joint Committee's statutorily prescribed
    duty of oversight of the administration of the Federal tax system.
        An on-going, statutorily mandated function of the Joint Committee
    is the review of IRS refunds or credits of income tax, estate and gift
    tax, or any tax on public charities, foundations, pension plans, or
    real estate investment trusts in excess of $1,000,000. The Joint
    Committee staff reviews and reports on such refund cases and makes
    comments or recommendations with respect to the proposal refund case to
    the IRS. The Joint Committee is moving from a calendar year to fiscal
    year reporting of refund activity. Therefore, statistics for 1998
    contained in Attachment E are presented for the period January through
    September. During this period of 1998, the Joint Committee refund staff
    reviewed 439 cases involving $4.8 billion in proposed refunds. The
    Joint Committee staff raised concerns in 55 cases (or approximately
    12.9 percent of the cases). Errors identified by the Joint Committee
    staff produced a net reduction in refunds of $20.4 million in 1998, as
    compared to $14.3 million in 1997. The average annual reduction in
    refunds for the last 8 years is $11.1 million.
    Revenue estimates and related analysis
        Attachments C and D show data relating to the Joint Committee's
    revenue estimating activity for calendar year 1998. The Joint Committee
    received 2,729 requests for revenue estimates during 1998, the largest
    number of requests ever received in a single year. These requests
    represent a 32 percent increase in the number of requests over 1997.
    The Joint Committee staff disposed of 85 percent of the requests
    received.
        Since 1985, when data on revenue estimate requests was first
    compiled, the number of requests received annually has increased by 684
    percent.
     anticipated workload of the joint committee on taxation for calendar
                                   year 1999
        During 1999, the Joint Committee's workload will be at least
    equivalent to what it has been in the past several years. The Joint
    Committee will be extensively involved in legislative proposals to
    provide broad-based tax relief to the American taxpayers, expiring tax
    provisions, and social security reform. The Joint Committee staff will
    (1) develop legislative proposals, (2) assist in the drafting of such
    proposals, (3) provide revenue estimates for numerous legislative
    options and amendments, (4) prepare markup documents and committee
    reports, and (5) provide additional economic analysis to the Members.
        In addition to this anticipated legislative activity, beginning in
    1999, the Joint Committee will assume new responsibilities under the
    IRS Reform Act. The Joint Committee staff is now required to prepare a
    complexity analysis for inclusion in Committee and Conference reports
    for all revenue legislation. In addition, the Joint Committee staff is
    required under the IRS Reform Act to conduct two studies during 1999.
    The first study relates to the present-law system of penalties and
    interest and is required to be completed by July 22, 1999. The second
    study relates to the rules governing disclosure of tax return
    information and is due by January 22, 2000. Finally, the Joint
    Committee is required to prepare materials for the use of the Congress
    in connection with joint hearings relating to the operations of the
    Internal Revenue Service that will occur during calendar years 1999-
    2003. These additional responsibilities will require significant staff
    resources.
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, we hope that you will approve the appropriation
    request of the Joint Committee on Taxation. We believe that this
    request is the minimum amount necessary to fund the operations of the
    Joint Committee during fiscal year 2000. These resources will not only
    fund the day-to-day operations of the Joint Committee staff, but will
    also be used to continue our efforts to develop macroeconomic
    estimating capabilities and to perform the additional responsibilities
    of the Joint Committee mandated by the IRS Reform Act. If the requested
    funding is not provided, then difficult decisions will be required
    concerning what staff activities can and should be funded. We hope that
    this Subcommittee will not force the Joint Committee to make these
    decisions.
        Mr. Chairman, we recognize fully the budgetary constraints that
    make your work so difficult. At the same time, we hope that you will
    appreciate the important role the Joint Committee on Taxation plays in
    the analysis and development of tax legislation. We firmly believe that
    the nonpartisan technical tax experts on the Joint Committee staff
    provide a service to the Congress that is not and cannot be duplicated
    by any other Congressional office. Their work every year proves this.
        We respectfully urge the Members of the Subcommittee to respond
    favorably to the Joint Committee's funding request for fiscal year
    2000.
     Attachment A.--1998 Tax-Related Legislative Reports Worked on by the
                    Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation
                      a. tax committee report explanations
        H.R. 1432 (African Growth and Opportunity Act). H. Rept. 105-423,
    Part 2. (House Ways and Means Committee report on revenue provision for
    the bill relating to employer deduction for severance pay).
        H.R. 2400 (Surface Transportation Revenue Act of 1998). H. Rept.
    105-467, Part 3. (House Ways and Means Committee report on extension
    and modification of Highway Trust Fund tax provisions).
        H.R. 2676 (Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
    1998). S. Rept 105-174. (Senate Finance Committee report on IRS
    restructuring provisions and tax technical corrections).
        H.R. 3249 (Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act). H. Rept.
    105-625, Part 2. (House Ways and Means Committee report on the bill).
        H.R. 4250 (Patient Protection Act of 1998). Technical explanation
    of tax provisions for House Floor consideration of the bill (see JCX-
    56-98).
        H.R. 4579 (Tax Relief Act of 1998). H. Rept. 105-739. (House Ways
    and Means Committee report on tax reduction and tax technical
    corrections provisions).
        H.R. 4738 (Extension of Expiring Provisions and Other Tax Relief).
    H. Rept. 105-817. (House Ways and Means Committee report on extension
    of expiring tax provisions, revenue offsets, and tax technical
    corrections).
        S. 442 (Internet Tax Freedom Act). S. Rept. 105-276. (Finance
    Committee report on amendment to the bill).
        S. 1133 (Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act). S. Rept.
    105-164. (Senate Finance Committee report on education savings
    accounts, other education-related tax provisions, and revenue offsets).
        S. 1415 (Tobacco Settlement). No official report. (Technical
    explanation of Finance Committee amendment to the bill).
                 b. tax-related conference report explanations
        H.R. 2400 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century). H.
    Rept. 105-550. (Conference report on the revenue provisions of the
    bill).
        H.R. 2646 (Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998). H.
    Rept. 105-577. (Conference report on the bill).
        H.R. 4328 (Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998). H. Rept.
    105-825 (Division J of Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act, 1999). (Conference report on revenue provisions of
    the bill).
           Attachment B.--1998 Joint Committee on Taxation Documents
                                jcs-98 documents
        JCS-1-98--Description And Analysis Of Proposals Relating To The
    Recommendations Of The National Commission On Restructuring The
    Internal Revenue Service, S. 1096, And H.R. 2676 As Passed By The House
    Scheduled for Public Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Finance
    Beginning on January 28, 1998. January 23, 1998
        JCS-2-98--Tax Amnesty. January 30, 1998
        JCS-3-98--Present Law And Analysis Relating To Individual Effective
    Marginal Tax Rates. Scheduled for a Public Hearing by the House
    Committee on Ways and Means on February 4, 1998. February 3, 1998
        JCS-4-98--Description Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The
    President's fiscal year 1999 Budget Proposal. February 24, 1998
        JCS-5-98--Comparison Of Provisions Of H.R. 2676 Relating To IRS
    Restructuring And Reform As Passed By The House And The Senate. May 18,
    1998
        JCS-6-98--General Explanation Of Tax Legislation Enacted In 1998.
    November 24, 1998
        JCS-7-98--Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For fiscal years
    1999-2003. December 14, 1998
                                jcx-98 documents
        JCX-1-98--Present Law And Background Relating To Proposals To
    Reduce The Marriage Tax Penalty. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before
    the House Committee on Ways and Means on January 28, 1998. January 27,
    1998
        JCX-2-98--Present Law And Background Relating To Estate And Gift
    Taxes. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee on
    Ways and Means on January 28, 1998. January 27, 1998
        JCX-3-98--Present Law And Issues Relating To The Individual
    Alternative Minimum Tax (``AMT''). Scheduled for a Hearing Before the
    House Committee on Ways and Means on February 4, 1998. February 2, 1998
        JCX-4-98--Present Law And Background Relating To Taxation Of
    Capital Gains. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House
    Committee on Ways and Means on February 12, 1998. February 6, 1998
        JCX-5-98--Description Of Chairman's Mark Of An Amendment To S. 1133
    (``Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act''). Scheduled for Markup
    by the Senate Committee on Finance on February 10, 1998. February 6,
    1998
        JCX-6-98--Present Law And Background Relating To Tax Treatment Of
    ``Innocent Spouses''. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Senate
    Committee on Finance on February 11, 1998. February 9, 1998
        JCX-7-98--Description Of Modifications To Chairman's Mark Of An
    Amendment To S. 1133 (``Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act'').
    Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on February 10,
    1998. February 10, 1998
        JCX-8-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Chairman's Mark With
    Modifications Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To S. 1133,
    The ``Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act''. February 10, 1998
        JCX-9-98--Description Of Revised Modifications To Chairman's Mark
    Of An Amendment To S. 1133 (``Parent And Student Savings Account Plus
    Act''). Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on
    February 10, 1998. February 10, 1998
        JCX-10-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Revised Chairman's Mark
    With Modifications Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To S.
    1133, The ``Parent And Student Savings Account Plus Act''. February 10,
    1998
        JCX-11-98--Present Law And Background Relating To Tax Incentives
    For Savings. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the House Committee
    on Ways and Means on February 12, 1998. February 11, 1998
        JCX-12-98--Description Of Revenue Provision In Chairman's Amendment
    In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 1432, The ``African Growth And
    Opportunity Act''. Scheduled for Markup by the House Committee on Ways
    and Means on February 25, 1998. February 23, 1998
        JCX-13-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Amendment In
    The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 1432, The ``African Growth And
    Opportunity Act''. February 23, 1998
        JCX-14-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions
    Contained In The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget Proposal. February
    24, 1998
        JCX-15-98--Chairman's Amendment Relating To Extension Of Highway
    Trust Fund Excise Taxes And Related Trust Fund Provisions (Revenue
    Title To H.R. 2400). March 25, 1998
        JCX-16-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of A Chairman's Amendment
    Relating To An Extension Of Highway Trust Fund Excise Taxes And Related
    Trust Fund Provisions (Revenue Title To H.R. 2400) On March 26, 1998.
    March 25, 1998
        JCX-17-98--Description Of Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Mark
    Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal Revenue Service.
    Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on March 31,
    1998. March 26, 1998
        JCX-18-98--Description Of Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Mark
    Of Tax Technical Corrections Provisions. Scheduled for Markup by the
    Senate Committee on Finance on March 31, 1998. March 26, 1998
        JCX-19-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Senate Finance
    Committee Chairman's Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The
    Internal Revenue Service (5-year numbers) March 27, 1998
        JCX-20-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Senate Finance
    Committee Chairman's Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The
    Internal Revenue Service (10-year numbers). March 27, 1998
        JCX-21-98--Description Of Modifications To Senate Finance Committee
    Chairman's Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The Internal
    Revenue Service And Tax Technical Corrections Provisions. Scheduled for
    Markup by the Senate Committee on Fiance on March 31, 1998. March 31,
    1998
        JCX-22-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Senate Finance
    Committee Chairman's Mark, With Modifications, Relating To Reform And
    Restructuring Of The Internal Revenue Service. March 31, 1998
        JCX-23-98--Description Of Additional Modifications To Senate
    Finance Committee Chairman's Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring
    Of The Internal Revenue Service And Tax Technical Corrections
    Provisions. March 31, 1998
        JCX-24-98--Description Of Accepted Amendments To Senate Finance
    Committee Chairman's Mark Relating To Reform And Restructuring Of The
    Internal Revenue Service And Tax Technical Corrections Provisions, As
    Modified. March 31, 1998
        JCX-25-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of Reform And Restructuring Of
    The Internal Revenue Service As Ordered To Be Reported By The Senate
    Committee On Finance On March 31, 1998. April 1, 1998
        JCX-26-98--Present Law And Background On Federal Tax Provisions
    Relating To Health Care. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the
    Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on
    April 23, 1998. April 22, 1998
        JCX-27-98--Comparison Of Transportation Revenue And Related
    Provisions Of H.R. 2400, As Passed By The House And The Senate. April
    27, 1998
        JCX-28-98--Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of
    Transportation Revenue And Related Provisions Of H.R. 2400, As Passed
    By The House And The Senate. April 27, 1998
        JCX-29-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of S. 1133, The Parent And
    Student Savings Account Plus Act,'' As Passed By The Senate On April
    23, 1998. May 4, 1998
        JCX-30-98--Overview Of Present-Law Tax Rules Relating To Qualified
    Pension Plans. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the Subcommittee
    on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means on May 5, 1998.
    May 4, 1998
        JCX-31-98--Description Of Roth Financing Amendment To The
    ``Internal Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998'' As
    Reported By The Senate Committee On Finance. May 5, 1998
        JCX-32-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 2676, The ``Internal
    Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998,'' As Reported By
    The Senate Committee On Finance And Modified By The Roth Financing
    Amendment. May 5, 1998
        JCX-33-98--Comparison Of Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2646 Relating
    To Certain Education Savings Tax Incentives As Passed By The House And
    The Senate. May 11, 1998
        JCX-34-98--Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of The
    Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2646, As Passed By The House And The Senate.
    May 11, 1998
        JCX-35-98--Description Of Present Law And Proposals Relating To
    Tobacco Tax And Trust Fund And Other Provisions. Scheduled for
    Consideration by the Senate Committee on Finance on May 14, 1998. May
    14, 1998
        JCX-36-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Chairman's Mark For
    Senate Finance Committee Markup Of S. 1415 On May 14, 1998. May 14,
    1998a
        JCX-37-98--Errata--``Description Of Present Law And Proposals
    Relating To Tobacco Tax And Trust Fund And Other Provisions. May 14,
    1998
        JCX-38-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of An Amendment To S. 1415, As
    Agreed To By The Senate Committee On Finance On May 14, 1998. May 14,
    1998
        JCX-39-98--Comparison Of Tax Technical Corrections Contained In
    H.R. 2676 As Passed By The House And The Senate. May 18, 1998
        JCX-40-98--Distributional Effects Of S. 1415, As Reported By The
    Senate Committee On Commerce, Science, And Transportation. May 18, 1998
        JCX-41-98--Distributional Effects Of An Amendment To S. 1415 As
    Reported By The Senate Committee On Finance. May 18, 1998
        JCX-42-98--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 2676, The ``Internal
    Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998,'' As Passed By
    The Senate On May 7, 1998. May 20, 1998
        JCX-43-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement
    Relating To The Transportation Revenue And Trust Fund Provisions Of
    H.R. 2400 (Title IX). May 22, 1998
        JCX-44-98--Comparison Of The Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 2676,
    The ``Internal Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998,''
    As Passed By The House And The Senate. May 28, 1998
        JCX-45-98--Description And Analysis Of Revenue-Related Provisions
    Of S. 1415 Relating To National Tobacco Policy As Modified By The
    Manager's Amendment. June 3, 1998
        JCX-46-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of The Conference Agreement On
    The Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 2646. June 16, 1998
        JCX-47-98--Disclosure Report For Public Inspection Pursuant To
    Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) For Calendar Year 1997.
    June 16, 1998
        JCX-48-98--Description Of Possible Proposals Relating To The
    Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (``AMT''). Scheduled for a Public
    Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on
    Ways and Means on June 23, 1998. June 22, 1998
        JCX-49-98--Description Of Possible Proposals To Reduce Tax
    Complexity For Small Business. Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before
    the House Committee on Ways and Means on June 23, 1998. June 22, 1998
        JCX-50-98R--Summary Of The Conference Agreement On H.R. 2676, The
    Internal Revenue Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998. June 24,
    1998
        JCX-51-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of Titles I-VIII Of The
    Conference Agreement Relating To H.R. 2676, The ``Internal Revenue
    Service Restructuring And Reform Act Of 1998''. June 24, 1998
        JCX-52-98--Description Of Revenue And Social Security Provisions
    Included In The Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To
    H.R. 3249, The ``Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act''. June
    24, 1998
        JCX-53R-98--Listing Of Expiring Tax Provisions, 1998-2007. June 30,
    1998
        JCX-54-98--Description Of Revenue Provisions To Be Considered In
    Connection With A Markup Of Trade Matters. Scheduled for Markup by the
    Senate Committee on Finance on July 21, 1998. July 20, 1998
        JCX-55-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of Revenue And Trade Provisions
    To Be Considered In Connection With A Markup Of Trade Matters.
    Scheduled For Markup By The Senate Committee On Finance On July 21,
    1998. July 21, 1998
        JCX-56-98--Description Of Revenue Offsets For Medical Savings
    Account Provisions Contained In H.R. 4250, The ``Patient Protection Act
    Of 1998''. July 23, 1998
        JCX-57-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of Medical Savings Account
    Provisions In H.R. 4250, The ``Patient Protection Act Of 1998,'' And
    Revenue-Offset Provisions Of An Amendment To Be Offered To The Bill.
    July 23, 1998
        JCX-58-98--Description Of S. 442, The ``Internet Tax Freedom Act,''
    And A Proposed Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute.
    Scheduled for Markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on July 28,
    1998. July 24, 1998
        JCX-59-98--Background And Present Law Relating To Funding
    Mechanisms Of The ``E-Rate'' Telecommunications Program. July 31, 1998
        JCX-60-98--Description Of Major Provisions Contained In The
    ``Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1998''. Scheduled for a Markup by the House
    Committee on Ways and Means on September 17, 1998. September 15, 1998
        JCX-61-98--Description Of Tax Technical Corrections In The
    ``Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1998''. Scheduled for Markup by the House
    Committee on Ways and Means on September 17, 1998. September 15, 1998
        JCX-62-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of The ``Taxpayer Relief Act Of
    1998''. September 15, 1998
        JCX-63-98--Distributional Effects Of The ``Taxpayer Relief Act Of
    1998''. September 15, 1998
        JCX-64-98--Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A
    Substitute To The Provisions Contained In H.R. 4579, The ``Taxpayer
    Relief Act Of 1998''. Scheduled for a Markup by the House committee on
    Ways and Means on September 17, 1998. September 17, 1998
        JCX-65-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of An Amendment In The Nature
    Of A Substitute To H.R. 4579, The ``Taxpayer Relief Act Of 1998''.
    September 17, 1998
        JCX-66-98--Description Of Provisions In H.R. 4738. Scheduled for
    Markup Before the House Committee on Ways and Means on October 9, 1998.
    October 9, 1998
        JCX-67-98--Description Of Tax Technical Corrections Contained In
    H.R. 4738. Scheduled for Markup Before the House Committee on Ways and
    Means on October 9, 1998. October 9, 1998
        JCX-68-98R--Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 4738. Scheduled for
    Markup by the Committee on Ways and Means on October 9, 1998. October
    9, 1998
        JCX-69-98--Description Of An Amendment In The Nature Of A
    Substitute To The Provisions In H.R. 4738. Scheduled for a Markup by
    the House Committee on Ways and Means on October 9, 1998. October 9,
    1998
        JCX-70R-98--Description Of Provisions In S. 2622, The Tax Relief
    Extension Act Of 1998. October 10, 1998
        JCX-71-98R--Estimated Revenue Effects Of S. 2622, The ``Tax Relief
    Extension Act Of 1998''. October 10, 1998
        JCX-72-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of H.R. 4738, As Passed By The
    House Of Representatives On October 12, 1998. October 13, 1998
        JCX-73-98--Estimated Budget Effects Of Tax And Trade Provisions Of
    H.R. 4328, The ``Omnibus Consolidated And Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act, 1999''. October 20, 1998
        JCX-74-98--Summary Of Expiring Tax And Trade Provisions And Other
    Revenue Provisions Contained In H.R. 4328, The Omnibus Consolidated And
    Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999. October 20, 1998
        JCX-75-98--Summary Of Revenue Provisions Contained In Legislation
    Enacted During The 105th Congress. November 19, 1998.

    Attachment C.--Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimate requests

            Calendar year                                    No. of requests

    1985..............................................................   348
    1986..............................................................   474
    1987..............................................................   420
    1988..............................................................   900
    1989.............................................................. 1,290
    1990.............................................................. 1,286
    1991.............................................................. 1,461
    1992.............................................................. 2,350
    1993.............................................................. 2,380
    1994.............................................................. 1,259
    1995.............................................................. 2,278
    1996.............................................................. 1,792
    1997.............................................................. 2,079
    1998.............................................................. 2,729

                 ATTACHMENT D.--105TH CONGRESS REQUEST DATA \1\
                            (As of January 13, 1999)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Requests   Requests   Percent
                   Requestors                 Received    Closed     Closed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ways and Means Committee:
        Republicans........................      1,036        887       85.6
        Democrats..........................        368        318       86.4
    Senate Finance Committee:
        Republicans........................      1,205      1,042       86.5
        Democrats..........................        800        693       86.6
    Non-Ways and Means Committee:
        Republicans........................        403        359       89.1
        Democrats..........................        182        152       83.5
    Non-Senate Finance Committee:
        Republicans........................        462        387       83.8
        Democrats..........................        484        387       80.0
    Others.................................         50         48       96.0
                                            --------------------------------
          Total............................      4,990      4,273       85.6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Totals include both revenue and non-revenue requests.

                           Attachment E.--Memorandum
                                                      October 28, 1998.
    To: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation
    From: Senior Refund Counsel
    Subject: Refund Section--Operations Report January 1-September 30, 1998
        \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Pursuant to our discussions, our report will now be on a fiscal
    year ended September 30. This transition period will be a short nine-
    month period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is a report on the more significant developments in this
    Office during this period.

                                    summary
        Volume.--Refund Cases--439 reports were received during this
    period. The total dollar amount of refunds was $4,836,746,304.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Reports received           1995      1996      1997      1998
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Examination Division............       425       375       457       334
    Appeals Division................       132       101       124        92
    Department of Justice...........        20        25        18        12
    Chief Counsel...................         2         5         3         1
                                     ---------------------------------------
          Total.....................       579       506       602       439
                                     =======================================
    Concerns \1\....................        79       104        88        58
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes 12 post review deficiency cases for 1995, 16 for 1996, 4
      for 1997, and 3 for 1998.

        Post Review.--The Service reports 64 large deficiency cases to us
    on an annual basis. During this reporting period, we received 44 of
    these cases and wrote 3 concerns.
        Other Action.--(1) We transmitted for consideration of legislative
    action 7 issues that arose in various cases.
        (2) We transmitted memoranda suggesting the Service reconsider its
    position in two areas, and one memorandum alerting them to an issue of
    industry importance.
        Exhibits and Appendices provide detailed information on most of the
    foregoing.
        Errors identified by us in 1998 and prior years, and settled in
    1998 produced a net reduction in refunds of $20.4 million. The average
    annual reduction for the last 8 years is $11.1 million. Such
    corrections also reduced ATNOLCF's, $46 million, AMFTC's $9 million,
    and regular tax credits $4.5 million. In addition, one joint committee
    reporter informed us of savings of $600,000 from corrections made
    before the case was submitted to us, that resulted from memoranda we
    had written in an earlier case.
        We hope that in spite of our decreased staffing we are
    satisfactorily accomplishing our assigned portion of the Committee's
    mission and meeting your expectations. We look forward to a productive,
    challenging year.

                             EXHIBIT I.--REPORTS TO JC AS REQUIRED BY IRS CODE SECTION 6405
                                    [From January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   No. of               Cumulative
                       Month                       cases    Cumulative    monthly   Dollar receipts     Cumulative
                                                  received     total      average                    dollar receipts
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January....................................         37          37          37     $347,022,310     $347,022,310
    February...................................         48          85          42      458,508,696      805,531,006
    March......................................         62         147          49      776,532,808    1,582,063,814
    April......................................         43         190          47      305,529,092    1,887,592,906
    May........................................         53         243          48      354,459,118    2,242,052,024
    June.......................................         54         297          49    1,293,518,368    3,535,570,392
    July.......................................         62         359          51      766,793,099    4,302,363,491
    August.....................................         35         394          49      190,355,756    4,492,719,247
    September..................................         45         439          48      344,027,057    4,836,746,304
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     EXHIBIT II.--JOINT COMMITTEE CASES RECEIVED IN BY TYPES OF TAXPAYER AND SOURCE
                                    [From January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Amount    Percent                                  Amount    Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                TYPES OF TAXPAYERS                                        SOURCE OF REPORTS
    Individuals..............................        23      5.24   Examination.................       334     76.08
    Estates..................................         7      1.59   Appeals.....................        92     20.96
    Trusts...................................         1      0.23   Justice.....................        12      2.73
    Corporations.............................       408     92.94   Tax Court...................         1      0.23
                                              ---------------------                              -------------------
          Total..............................       439    100.00         Total.................       439    100.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               EXHIBIT III.--JOINT COMMITTEE MONTHLY RECEIPTS--REFUND REPORTS FROM EXAMINATION AND APPEALS
                                    [From January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Month                               Examination  Cumulative   Appeals   Cumulative
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January.........................................................          22           22         13          13
    February........................................................          39           61          8          21
    March...........................................................          51          112          9          30
    April...........................................................          36          148          6          36
    May.............................................................          41          189         12          48
    June............................................................          43          232          9          57
    July............................................................          39          271         20          77
    August..........................................................          28          299          7          84
    September.......................................................          35          334          8          92
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  EXHIBIT IV.--1998 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION CONCERNS ON REFUND REPORTS FROM IRS \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Total No. of
                                                                       Examinations       Appeals        concerns
                                                                                                          issued
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of concerns issued.......................................              40              15              55
    Percent of total concerns issued................................              73              27             100
    Total reports received..........................................             334              92             426
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Number of Concerns does not include 3 on deficiency cases.

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        So, the budget does not include the $200,000 and three
    additional FTE's. Would you ask us to do that? That is not a
    lot of money.
        Senator Roth. I think my personal answer, Mr. Chairman,
    would be yes. I think that there is great merit in making a
    careful examination of the Internal Revenue Code. It would be a
    very, very considerable undertaking on the part of the Joint
    Committee, but I will have to tell you, the more I have looked
    into the IRS, the Tax Code, the complexity, the fact that
    different experts come out with different answers, it is
    critically important that we move ahead with reform.
        Senator Bennett. Well, I recall during the health care
    debate in the 103rd Congress I quoted James Madison on the
    floor when he said, laws must be understandable, and made the
    point that the 1,300 pages that were offered to us as the
    health care law were absolutely impenetrable. The then chairman
    of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, took the floor and
    said, we have long since gone beyond the time when laws were
    understandable. Consider the Internal Revenue Code, which no
    one understands and which is three or four times as voluminous
    as the piece of legislation that the Senator from Utah is
    complaining about.
        I think if we can resolve it for $200,000, we probably
    should do it.
        Senator Roth. I would be very supportive of that approach.
        Senator Bennett. I have to ask the standard question. You
    have a lot of hardware and software, a significant equipment
    budget, are your systems Y2K compliant? Have you dealt with
    that challenge?
        Ms. Paull. Yes, our systems are. We currently produce lots
    of tables that include the year 2000 and beyond, and so we have
    already had a check-out and we are in good shape.
        Senator Bennett. I wish I could say that was the case for
    everyone who comes before us.
        Senator Roth. I think that is where our risk is, Mr.
    Chairman, when we do work with outside organizations whether or
    not they have made the necessary changes.
        Senator Bennett. All right. Senator Feinstein, I have no
    further questions.
        Senator Feinstein. Just one, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Sure.
        Senator Feinstein. Senator, just one quick question on the
    additional----
        Senator Roth. Make it easy. [Laughter.]
        Senator Feinstein (continuing). On the additional FTE's. In
    your remarks, you mentioned three missions. One is the
    complexity analysis of the revenue provisions. I trust that
    means recommendations for simplification of the Tax Code. The
    second is the annual report in connection with the hearings of
    the six congressional committees, and the third is the present
    law protections relating to disclosure and tax reform
    information.
        Are those the three areas, or is there more for these
    people to do?
        Senator Roth. There is more. For example, a study is being
    taken and is to be available I think in July on penalties and
    interest. I think this is a critically important study because
    the number of penalties and interest are a major concern of
    mine, particularly in light of the complexity and lack of
    understanding of the Tax Code. People can work in good faith
    and try to do what is right or they may have made an honest
    mistake, and yet they are subject to significant penalties, as
    well as interest. I think this is a matter that cries for
    further study. There may be other matters.

                         simplification of the Tax Code

        Senator Feinstein. Is there now no kind of oversight,
    review process in the sense of recommendations for change?
        Ms. Paull. Well, part of the Joint Committee's mission is
    to look at the Tax Code and make recommendations on how to
    simplify the Code. We have a project going on right now and we
    have done several projects in the past to make some
    recommendations on simplification.
        But the additional appropriations would be to cover all of
    the Tax Code, not just single out areas where we think priority
    attention ought to be given. So, it would be a much more
    comprehensive effort than we do today in trying to identify the
    worst parts of the Tax Code and make recommendations to address
    that.
        In addition, we did absorb in our budget some of the duties
    that were given to us under the IRS restructuring bill, the two
    studies that were mentioned, as well as the complexity analysis
    and the coordination of the joint hearings. So, it is really
    this big effort, looking through the entire Tax Code and making
    a recommendation, that would really be a much larger
    undertaking than we could absorb in our budget today.
        Senator Feinstein. You are asking for this up to the year
    2003, or this is a permanent addition?
        Ms. Paull. The comprehensive report is once every Congress.
    What we are asking for is an annual appropriation of $200,000
    and three FTE's to devote those resources to that once-a-
    Congress report.
        Senator Feinstein. On an ongoing basis.
        Ms. Paull. That is correct.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Senator Bennett. Let me revisit that. Is there any similar
    effort going forward in the Library of Congress Congressional
    Research Service?
        Ms. Paull. I am not aware of that, but the IRS
    restructuring bill does ask the IRS to perform a similar
    function on an annual basis. Their first report will be due
    March of the year 2000.
        Senator Roth. I think there is great merit in duplication.
        Senator Bennett. I see a group of experts with different
    patrons----
        Senator Roth. Exactly.
        Senator Bennett (continuing). Gathering around the table
    and swapping ideas. So, I am not suggesting you do not need it
    if the Congressional Research Service has it, but when we get
    the Library of Congress before us, we may ask them if their
    Congressional Research Service has some experts that are
    working on this. So, the IRS will come and say this is how we
    think, the Joint Committee on Taxation comes and says this is
    how we think, and the Congressional Research Service says this
    is how we think. Maybe we will get some fertile ideas coming
    out of that kind of exchange.
        Senator Roth. Right. It is a major undertaking and it is
    extraordinarily difficult.
        Senator Bennett. It is. I was involved in Senator Dole's
    effort to try to come up with an idea, and we finally settled
    on saying it will take us 2 years. [Laughter.]
        Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here and the
    work you do.
        Ms. Paull. Mr. Chairman, if I might also leave some
    background pamphlets that we did in response to your concerns
    and the subcommittee's concerns about access to our services by
    other Members than the tax-writing committees so they can
    understand what we do and how to use our services.
        Senator Bennett. We have some statistics on that.
        Ms. Paull. Yes, I know. We are very interested in making
    sure everybody uses our services and has equal access.
        Senator Bennett. Well, I noticed the one group that has the
    highest response. You might be interested, Senator Feinstein.
    We raised the issue that their staff only responds to people
    from the Ways and Means and the Finance Committees. You will
    find now that on the Ways and Means Committee, Republicans get
    85.6 of their questions answered and the Democrats 86.4; the
    Senate Finance Committee Republicans, 86.5 and the Democrats,
    86.6. But non-Ways and Means Committee Republicans are 89.1.
    That is the highest level, and the lowest level is non-Finance
    Committee Democrats. I wonder if that reflects the Speaker who
    would be a non-Ways and Means Committee Republican? The Speaker
    may be the one who has driven that number higher. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Paull. The leadership certainly usually needs
    information quickly when they ask for it.
        Senator Bennett. Since the Leader over here is a Finance
    Committee Republican----
        Ms. Paull. But if you would look at the absolute numbers in
    the Senate, non-Finance Committee members, it is a factor that
    there are a lot more amendments that get offered on the Senate
    floor than they do in the House. You can see the absolute
    numbers are high.
        Senator Bennett. Well, your overall response: 85.6 percent.
    You mentioned that in your testimony, which is why I did not
    pursue it in the questions. Your desire to get that up is
    recognized and we appreciate your concern.
        Senator Roth. Thank you very much.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

    STATEMENT OF HON. CONNIE MACK, CHAIRMAN

                                opening remarks

        Senator Bennett. We welcome Senator Connie Mack, the
    Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee that has requested
    $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2000, which is a slight increase
    over fiscal year 1999 to provide accommodation for cost-of-
    living for staff and nondiscretionary agency contributions.
        Senator, we welcome you and look forward to your testimony.
        Senator Mack. You just made my statement. [Laughter.]
        I do have a couple of comments that I will make.
        But first of all, let me say what a pleasure it is to be
    back with the committee, this time sitting on this side of the
    desk.
        Senator Bennett. Senator Mack and I--when he was the
    chairman of this subcommittee--cut the Joint Economic Committee
    back, so he has to live with that now that he is the chairman.
        Senator Mack. Well, as a matter of fact, if I remember
    correctly, it was about a 24 percent cut in real terms and we
    reduced the staff from about 50, 51 to 38, which was in 1994.
        Senator Bennett. 1995.

                    Joint Economic Committee budget request

        Senator Mack. 1995? Yes.
        We have the same number of personnel now as we did after we
    made the cut. We have held it steady during that period of
    time.
        I just have a short statement that I would like to present.
        The Joint Economic Committee, as you have indicated,
    requests $3.2 million for fiscal year 2000. This budget request
    reflects the anticipated cost-of-living adjustments and
    incremental nondiscretionary agency contributions.
        The 106th Congress will confront a host of important
    economic issues that will have a far-reaching impact for the
    next 2 years and the coming millennium. It is my hope that the
    upcoming debates on Social Security, tax reform, and the
    budget, among many other economic issues, will be better
    informed by analyses provided by the Joint Economic Committee.
    I am committed to providing Congress with quality research that
    will help us make the best possible decisions for this country.
        These are truly exciting times. A technological revolution
    has produced the emergence and integration of world financial
    markets to create a global economy. As much of the world
    struggles to adapt to the changes demanded by these new
    realities, the United States stands as a beacon to economic
    growth. The way in which this Congress addresses the many
    economic issues before it will affect the long-term economic
    health of our country, as well as the paths which many other
    nations will follow.
        Producing and disseminating accurate economic research and
    analysis will be the hallmark of this Congress' Joint Economic
    Committee. Only through the use of accurate research can we
    promote the informed policy debates that are crucial to the
    formation of sound economic policy. It is my judgment that this
    can be accomplished within the budget request that I have made.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a moment ago, we have
    held the staff positions to the same number now, 1995, 1996,
    1997, 1998, 1999, and this will be into the year 2000. At the
    same time that we have made those reductions, we have been able
    to produce quality information and information that is of
    benefit to the Congress. I would hope that you would be
    supportive of our budget request.

                               prepared statement

        The increase you mentioned is to cover inflation, but there
    is a component over which we have no control over, the
    nondiscretionary agency contributions.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Connie Mack
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you this morning as Chairman of the Joint
    Economic Committee. I am happy to be here. The Joint Economic Committee
    requests $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2000. This budget request reflects
    the anticipated cost of living adjustments and incremental
    nondiscretionary agency contributions.
        The 106th Congress will confront a host of important economic
    issues that will have a far-reaching impact for the next two years and
    the coming millennium. It is my hope that the upcoming debates on
    Social Security, Tax Reform, and the Budget, among many other economic
    issues, will be better informed by analyses provided by the Joint
    Economic Committee. I am committed to providing Congress with quality
    research that will help it make the best possible decisions for this
    country.
        These are truly exciting times. A technological revolution has
    produced the emergence and integration of world financial markets to
    create a global economy. As much of the world struggles to adapt to the
    changes demanded by these new realities, the United States stands as a
    beacon to economic growth. The way in which this Congress addresses the
    myriad of economic issues before it will affect the long-term economic
    health of our country, as well as the paths which many other nations
    may follow. For these reasons, this Congress must possess the ability
    to gather and utilize the most accurate economic data available. My
    staff and I are committed to providing this data in a concise and
    accessible manner so that we may meet the challenges that face us and
    make the best possible decisions for the 21st century.
        Producing and disseminating accurate economic research and analysis
    will be the hallmark of this Congress' Joint Economic Committee. Only
    through the use of accurate research can we promote the informed policy
    debates that are crucial to the formation of sound economic policy. It
    is my judgment that this can be accomplished with this budget request.
        I thank you and welcome your questions.

        Senator Bennett. You have covered all of the issues that I
    had as questions.
        Do you have any questions Senator Feinstein?
        Senator Feinstein. No questions. A piece of cake.
        Senator Mack. A piece of cake. That is right.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much for all you do.
        Senator Mack. Thank you very much.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you. We appreciate your coming in.
                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    STATEMENT OF RICKY SILBERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            PAM TALKIN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE SENATE
            GARY GREEN, GENERAL COUNSEL
            BETH HUGHES-BROWN, ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUDGET OFFICER

                           introduction of Associates

        Senator Bennett. We recognize officially Ms. Ricky
    Silberman who is the Executive Director of the Office of
    Compliance. If you want to introduce the people who are with
    you.
        Ms. Silberman. I do indeed. Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Feinstein, this is the Deputy Executive Director for the
    Senate, Pam Talkin, who has been here before; Gary Green,
    General Counsel of the Office of Compliance; and Beth Hughes-
    Brown, our Administrative and Budget Officer. We are honored to
    be here today to present to you the office's fiscal year 2000
    budget.
        I know you will be pleased to hear that this year we are
    once again asking for less money than we received last year:
    $2.076 million for fiscal year 2000, which is a half percent
    decrease from our fiscal year 1999 budget. We have actually
    sustained a decrease of over 20 percent over the past 3 years
    that the office has been in existence.
        The majority of our expenditures continue to be in
    personnel costs and personal services contracts. For example,
    section 215 of the CAA, which applied portions of the
    Occupational Safety and Health Act to the legislative branch,
    vests in the General Counsel the authority to conduct
    inspections and investigate health and safety complaints.
    During this past fiscal year, requests for inspections and
    investigations under section 215 have increased significantly.
    OSHA is proving to be one of the most significant
    responsibilities that we have under the act.
        The nature of some of these requests has required expert
    guidance in the performance of a wide range of occupational
    safety and health analyses, and assistance in the preparation
    of technical reports. Gary Green, our General Counsel, who
    enforces OSHA, ADA, and the labor-management portions of the
    CAA, is here to address any questions that you may have in this
    area.
        The strictly confidential alternative dispute resolution
    system, which Congress provided legislative branch employees in
    the CAA, continues to be a model of effectiveness. I think it
    is probably the single most important reason why our costs
    continue to go down. It is based on the principle that an
    informed regulated community and early resolution of disputes
    is most cost effective and best for employees and employing
    offices. Indeed, the process has proved so effective that the
    Board of Directors has recommended that Congress provide the
    private and Federal sectors ``with the same efficient and
    effective method of resolving disputes that the legislative
    branch now enjoys.''
        This recommendation was made in the biennial section 102(b)
    study recently submitted to Congress. In that study, the Board
    is required to review and report on the applicability to
    Congress of employment laws passed subsequent to the CAA, and
    that report also included the Board's evaluation of the
    comprehensiveness of coverage of the CAA laws to the three
    largest instrumentalities, a task that was left to the future
    time when the CAA was passed. Those three instrumentalities are
    the Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the
    Government Printing Office. We have sent along copies of the
    102(b) study to members of the committee, and we have one
    available if anybody would like to see it.
        We have also attached with our submission for your
    information the section 301(h) report, and that contains the
    statistics which the office is required to maintain on employee
    use of the office.
        The office is mandated to provide a comprehensive program
    of education and information, and that includes briefings for
    Senate employing offices, as well as a number of publications
    regarding rights and responsibilities under the Congressional
    Accountability Act. These education and information activities
    and the publication of reports and studies account for most of
    the printing and postage costs and much of the cost of
    materials requested for fiscal year 2000.
        Mr. Chairman, we acknowledge and appreciate your leadership
    of and interest in addressing the year 2000 compliance in
    legislative branch agencies. We have made good use of the
    guidance of the GAO team working at your behest in this past
    year. We have assessed, tested and, when necessary, revised and
    replaced the mission-critical systems that could be affected at
    the turn of the century. We have gone into considerable detail
    in our written statement as to what we have done. I will go
    into it if you like or skip over it and you can ask questions
    which I will not be able to answer, but Beth Hughes-Brown will
    absolutely be able to answer.
        When we first went into business over 3 years ago, Beth
    came in and said, you know, there is a real problem looming in
    the future, and she has been on top of this. We are very proud
    of the fact that we are totally compliant at this point with
    the exception of something that we have no control over and
    that is the telecommunication systems. We have a redundant
    system in place with cell phones just in case we need it.
        So, moving right along, looking to the future of the Office
    of Compliance, we have conducted an analysis and evaluation of
    office functions and operations in terms of future needs. Our
    reduced workload, as I said earlier, in counseling, mediation,
    and hearings seems to be stabilized at really a much reduced
    level. However, we have had an increased demand in OSHA and
    other activities, and we are reorganizing and reallocating our
    resources. We believe we will be able to further trim our
    budget by reducing staff by attrition within the next year. We
    are already moving to do that, but of course if the Congress
    were to increase the office's authority and responsibility, as
    recommended in the 102(b) report, a reassessment is going to be
    necessary.

                               prepared statement

        We are very proud of the work of this office, and I would
    like to take this opportunity to thank you and Christine
    Ciccone for the support which has unfailingly been afforded to
    us in the nearly 4 years since Congress passed the CAA and
    since the Office of Compliance was begun.
        We will be delighted to answer any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Ricky Silberman
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. As the
    Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, I am honored to be here
    to present to you the Office's year 2000 budget. With me are my
    colleagues the statutory officers: Deputy Executive Director for the
    Senate, Pam Talkin; Jim Stephens, Deputy Executive Director for the
    House; General Counsel, Gary Green and Beth Hughes-Brown,
    Administrative and Budget Officer.
        This year we once again are asking for less money than last: $2.076
    million for fiscal year 2000, a 0.5 percent decrease from our fiscal
    year 1999 budget, and a decrease of more than 20 percent over the past
    three years. The majority of our appropriation expenditures continue to
    be in personnel costs and personal services contracts. For example,
    Section 215 of the CAA, which applied portions of the Occupational
    Safety and Health Act to the legislative branch, vests in the General
    Counsel the authority to conduct inspections and investigate health and
    safety complaints. During this past fiscal year, requests for
    inspections and investigations under Section 215 have increased
    significantly. The nature of some of these requests required expert
    guidance in the performance of a wide range of occupational safety and
    health analyses, and assistance in preparation of technical reports.
    Gary Green, our General Counsel, who enforces the OSHA, ADA, and other
    sections of the CAA, is here to address any questions you may have.
        The strictly confidential alternative dispute resolution system,
    which Congress provided legislative branch employees in the CAA,
    continues to be a model of effectiveness. It is based on the principle
    that an informed regulated community and early resolution of disputes
    is most cost effective and best for employees and employing offices.
    Indeed, the process has proved so effective that the Board of Directors
    has recommended that Congress provide the private and federal sectors
    ``with the same efficient and effective method of resolving disputes
    that the legislative branch now enjoys.''
        This recommendation was made in the biennial Section 102(b) Study
    recently submitted to Congress in which the Board is required to review
    and report on the applicability to Congress of employment laws passed
    subsequent to the CAA. That report also included the Board's evaluation
    of the comprehensiveness of coverage of the CAA laws to the three
    largest instrumentalities--the Library of Congress, the General
    Accounting Office, and the Government Printing Office. I've brought
    copies of the 102(b) Study with me today for you and the members of the
    Committee. We have also attached for your information the Section
    301(h) report of the statistics which the Office is required to
    maintain and publish on employee use of the Office.
        The Office provides a comprehensive program of education and
    information including monthly briefings for House employing offices,
    quarterly newsletters which are sent to all legislative branch
    employees, and a comprehensive manual for employing offices on rights
    and responsibilities under the Congressional Accountability Act.
    Education and information activities, in addition to the publication of
    reports and studies, account for most of the printing and postage costs
    and much of the cost of materials requested for fiscal year 2000.
        We acknowledge and appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in
    addressing year 2000 compliance in legislative branch agencies. We have
    made good use of the guidance of the GAO team working at your behest in
    the past year, to assess, test, and when necessary revise or replace
    the mission critical systems that could be affected at the turn of the
    next century. We have had a certain degree of advantage over some other
    agencies due to our small size, recent startup, and most importantly,
    due to the fact that our internal systems are completely PC-based. All
    of our personal computers are Y2K compliant, in terms of hardware,
    software, and networking and operating systems. All of our peripheral
    equipment, including printers, faxes, modems, TDD's, copiers, postage
    meters, scanners, and the technical equipment needed to conduct OSHA
    inspections, are compliant as well, and have been tested for
    interoperability issues. Our e-mail system, voice mail system and
    recorded information line are compliant and ready.
        External systems include accounting, our web page, and payroll. The
    Office is cross-serviced by the Library of Congress for accounting and
    disbursement purposes, and the Library loaded the new compliant version
    of the Federal Financial Systems software in production mode last June.
    It has passed all tests, including interface issues. Our web page is
    maintained on a GPO server, which has been fully tested, and we access
    the server by a dial-up software that is also compliant. We are cross-
    serviced by the National Finance Center for payroll purposes, and all
    newly compliant NFC systems have been in production mode since
    September, 1998. Direct deposit could be a problem for some employees,
    since NFC has no control over banks, but with such a small number of
    employees, the Office will generate replacement hard copy checks if
    necessary.
        The only area where the Office has insufficient control over our
    vendors and their component vendors is in telecommunications. Our phone
    instruments are fully compliant, as are the switches we lease. We are
    not satisfied with the assurance we've received to date from our
    telecommunications vendors, and our phone system is one of our most
    critical systems. Therefore, we have a contingency plan in place, and
    will be procuring cell phones for essential staff members late this
    year.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Office of Compliance has conducted an
    analysis and evaluation of Office functions and needs. In light of our
    reduced workload in counseling, mediation and hearings and the
    increased demand in OSHA and other activities, we have reorganized and
    reallocated our resources. We believe we'll be able to further trim our
    budget by reducing staff by attrition within the next year or two.
    We're very proud of the work of the Office and I would like to take
    this opportunity to thank you and Christine Ciccone for the support
    which has been unfailingly afforded to us in the nearly four years
    since the passage of the CAA.
        We'd be delighted to answer any questions.
                                     ______

      Office of Compliance Section 301(H) Report to Congress--January 1,
                             1998-December 31, 1998
                                  introduction
        The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) generally applies
    provisions of eleven federal labor and employment laws to over 20,000
    covered congressional employees and employing offices. The Office of
    Compliance (Office), an independent agency in the legislative branch,
    was established in the CAA to administer and enforce the Act and
    provide a process for the timely and confidential resolution of
    workplace disputes. Section 310(h) of the CAA requires that the Office
    of Compliance: * * * compile and publish statistics on the use of the
    Office by covered employees, including the number and type of contacts
    made with the Office, on the reason for such contacts, on the number of
    covered employees who initiated proceedings with the Office under this
    Act and results of such proceedings, and on the number of covered
    employees who file a complaint, the basis for the complaint, and the
    action taken on the complaint.
        This third annual report, which provides information for the period
    from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, begins with a summary
    of the authority and responsibilities of the Office of Compliance.
              office of compliance authority and responsibilities
        The CAA establishes the Office of Compliance with a Board of five
    members, who serve on a part-time basis, and four statutory appointees:
    the Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate,
    Deputy Executive Director for the House, and the General Counsel. The
    Office is charged with providing alternative dispute resolution
    procedures, adjudicative hearings and appeals, for covered legislative
    branch employees and education and information on the CAA to members of
    Congress, other employing offices, and employees of the legislative
    branch. The Board is required to adopt substantive regulations for
    implementation of certain provisions of the CAA and the Executive
    Director to adopt rules governing the procedures of the Office. The
    Office of the General Counsel enforces the provisions of sections 210
    and 215, relating to health and safety and public access requirements,
    including investigation and prosecution of claims under these sections,
    and periodic inspections to ensure compliance. Additionally, the
    General Counsel investigates and prosecutes unfair labor practices
    under section 220 of the CAA.
        The CAA applies the rights and protections of provisions of the
    following eleven labor and employment statutes to covered employees
    within the legislative branch: title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
    1964; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; title I of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; the Fair Labor
    Standards Act of 1938; the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988;
    the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act; chapter 43 of title 38 of the
    U.S. Code (relating to veterans' employment and reemployment); the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to public services and
    accommodations; the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and
    chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code (relating to federal service
    labor-management relations).
             third annual report--january 1, 1998-december 31, 1998
    Number of Contacts Received by the Office of Compliance: 544
        Employees and employing offices may, at any time, seek informal
    advice and information on the procedures of the Office and the rights,
    protections, and responsibilities afforded under the CAA. The office
    responds to all inquiries on a confidential basis.
        544 requests for information from covered employees, employing
    offices, the public, unions, and the press were made by phone and in
    person from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998. Contacts were as
    follows:

    Employees.........................................................   302
    Employing offices.................................................   159
    Public............................................................    66
    Unions............................................................    14
    Press.............................................................     3
    Recorded Information line.........................................   141

        In addition, the Office of Compliance website proved to be a
    frequent and efficient means for covered employees, covered employing
    offices and the general public to access information on the CAA.
    Reasons for Employee Contacts
        302 covered employees contacted the Office asking questions under
    the following sections: (note: Aggregate numbers will not necessarily
    match category totals as a single contact may involve more than one
    section or subsection of the CAA, and/or more than one issue or alleged
    violation.)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section                       Description                       Contacts
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        201Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil          74
            Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
            Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of
            1973, and title I of the Americans with
            Disabilities Act of 1990
        202Rights and protections under the Family and Medical          36
            Leave Act of 1993
        203Rights and protections under the Fair Labor                  27
            Standards Act of 1938
        204Rights and protections under the Employee Polygraph   .........
            Protection Act of 1988
        205Rights and protections under the Worker Adjustment    .........
            and Retraining Notification Act
        206Rights and protections relating to veterans'          .........
            employment and reemployment
        207Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal                       7
        210Rights and protections under the Americans with               1
            Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to public
            services and accommodations; procedures for remedy
            of violations
        215Rights and protections under the Occupational Safety          2
            and Health Act of 1970; procedures for remedy of
            violations
        220Application of chapter 71 of title 5, United States          11
            Code, Relating to Federal service labor-management
            relations
         NAQuestions regarding the general application of the           33
            CAA
         NAQuestions on matters which were not cognizable under        136
            the CAA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The 302 employee contacts were for information regarding:

    Assignments.......................................................     9
    Benefits..........................................................     1
    Compensatory time off.............................................     4
    Compensation......................................................     7
    Demotion..........................................................     2
    Discharge.........................................................     1
    Discipline........................................................     8
    Equal pay.........................................................     2
    Evaluation........................................................     6
    Exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.....................     4
    General questions regarding statutory requirements................    39
    Harassment........................................................    28
    Hiring............................................................     5
    Hours of work.....................................................     4
    Leave.............................................................    37
    Leave eligibility.................................................     3
    Overtime pay......................................................    11
    Promotion.........................................................    25
    Reasonable accommodations.........................................     5
    Reassignment......................................................     1
    Recordkeeping.....................................................     2
    Scheduling........................................................     4
    Termination.......................................................    18
    Terms and conditions of employment................................    11
    Time off..........................................................     1
    Requests for written materials....................................     5

    Number of Proceedings Initiated by Covered Employees: 60
        Pursuant to title IV of the CAA, the Office of Compliance provides
    dispute resolution in the form of counseling and mediation. A
    proceeding under the CAA is initiated by an individual employee's
    request for counseling alleging a violation of the CAA.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ It should be noted that the alleged unlawful application of a
    single policy of an employing office may involve multiple individual
    claims.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        60 employees from the following employing offices filed formal
    requests for counseling:

    The Architect of the Capitol......................................    30
    Capitol Guide Service...................................................
    Capitol Police....................................................     6
    Congressional Budget Office.............................................
    House of Representatives (non-member or committee offices)........     4
    House of Representatives (member offices).........................     9
    House of Representatives (committee office).......................     1
    Senate (non-Senator or committee offices).........................     6
    Senator...........................................................     3
    Senate (committee office).........................................     1
                                                                      ______
          Total employee counseling requests..........................    60

        These 60 requests for counseling alleged violations under the
    following sections of the Congressional Accountability Act: (Please see
    note above regarding aggregate numbers.)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section                        Description                        Cases
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        201Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil          61
            Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
            Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of
            1973, and title I of the Americans with Disabilities
            Act of 1990
        202Rights and protections under the Family and Medical           5
            Leave Act of 1993
        203Rights and protections under the Fair Labor Standards         2
            Act of 1938
        207Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal                      27
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Workplace issues raised by employees requesting counseling under
    the CAA fell into the following categories: (Please see note above
    regarding aggregate numbers.)

    Assignments.......................................................     3
    Benefits..........................................................     1
    Compensation......................................................     2
    Demotion..........................................................     2
    Discharge.........................................................     3
    Discipline........................................................     2
    Equal pay.........................................................     1
    Harassment........................................................    14
    Hiring............................................................     3
    Layoff............................................................     1
    Leave.............................................................     7
    Overtime Pay......................................................     2
    Promotion.........................................................    20
    Reasonable accommodations.........................................     1
    Reassignment......................................................     4
    Scheduling........................................................     1
    Selection.........................................................     3
    Suspension........................................................     1
    Termination.......................................................    21
    Terms and conditions of employment................................     3

    Results of the Proceedings
        Counseling.--Of the 60 counseling requests received between January
    1, 1998 and December 31, 1998, and the 11 pending on January 1, 1998:
    11 cases closed during or after counseling, but before mediation--0
    settled and 11 sought no further action; 2 cases were pending at the
    end of 1998; 58 requests for mediation were filed.
        Mediation.--58 mediation requests received between January 1, 1998
    and December 31, 1998. In addition, on January 1, 1998 there were 12
    cases pending in mediation, and 13 cases which had completed mediation
    and were in the open period for filing a complaint. Of those 83 cases:
      --49 cases closed during or after mediation
        --18 cases were settled (including one case that settled after
                District Court suit)
        --in 28 cases, no further action was taken by the covered employee
                after mediation ended
        --4 civil actions were filed in District Court (one of which was
                settled);
      --13 cases were pending in mediation on December 31, 1998;
      --10 cases had completed mediation and were in the time period when a
            complaint could be filed;
      --12 complaints were filed after mediation ended.
        Complaints.--If the dispute remains unresolved after counseling and
    mediation, an employee may elect to file a civil action in the district
    courts of the United States or to file a complaint with the Office. If
    a complaint is filed with the Office, a Hearing Officer is appointed to
    hear the case and issue a decision.
        Twelve complaints were filed with the Office between January 1,
    1998 and December 31, 1998 and one complaint was pending on January 1,
    1998.
    Basis of Complaints
        The complaints filed during 1998 involved the following issues:
    alleged discrimination in assignments based on race and gender; alleged
    failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a
    disability (2 cases); alleged retaliatory discipline; alleged
    termination based on age; alleged termination based on national origin,
    race and color; alleged discrimination based on race and disability;
    alleged termination based on age and disability; alleged termination
    based on age and gender; alleged failure to promote based on gender;
    alleged failure to promote based on gender and race; alleged harassment
    and termination based on race and in retaliation for opposing practices
    made unlawful by the CAA.
    Action Taken on Complaints
        Any party aggrieved by a Hearing Officer's decision may file a
    petition for review of the decision by the Board of Directors of the
    Office.
        During January 1, 1998-December 31, 1998:
        Hearings.--2 hearing officer decisions were issued; 6 cases were
    settled or otherwise resolved before the hearings concluded; 5
    complaints were pending either with hearings scheduled for early 1999
    or awaiting Hearing Officer decisions.
        Appeals.--No petitions for review of Hearing Officer decisions were
    filed with the Board; 3 petitions were pending on January 1, 1998; 2
    Hearing Officer decisions were not appealed and became the final
    decisions of the Office.
        Board action.--3 Board decisions were issued in 1998; No petitions
    for review of Hearing Officer decisions were pending on December 31,
    1998.
        Judicial review.--1 Petition for review was filed; One court
    decision was issued on a petition for review filed in 1997. The U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Board's decision.
    Labor-Management Relations
        The Office carries out the Board's investigative authorities under
    section 220 of the CAA, involving issues concerning the appropriateness
    of bargaining units for labor organization representation, the duty to
    bargain, and exceptions to arbitrators' awards.
        During January 1, 1998-December 31, 1998:
      --2 representation petitions were filed;
      --1 Board decision was issued clarifying that several newly
            encumbered positions were included in a previously certified
            unit;
      --2 Board Decisions and Directions of Election were issued, one of
            which set aside the results of the initial election because of
            objectionable conduct and ordered a second election (prior to
            the holding of the second election, the labor organization
            withdrew its representation petition);
      --2 election agreements were entered into by the parties and approved
            by the Executive Director on behalf of the Board;
      --2 elections were conducted. As a result of the elections, one labor
            organization was certified as the bargaining representative of
            employees;
      --2 petitions were pending on December 31, 1998: a representation
            petition filed by a labor organization seeking to represent a
            unit of approximately 19 employees, and a unit clarification
            petition seeking to resolve the unit status of certain
            employees in a bargaining unit certified in 1997.
    The Office of the General Counsel
        The Office of the General Counsel is responsible for matters
    arising under three sections of the CAA: section 210--Public Services
    and Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
    section 215--Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and section
    220--unfair labor practices under chapter 71, of title 5, United States
    Code.
        58 requests for Information and Technical Assistance were made from
    January 1998 through December 1998 under the following sections:

    Section 210: Public Services and Accommodations under the
        Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.......................    14
    Section 215: Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970...........    41
    Section 220: Unfair Labor Practices under chapter 71, of title 5,
        United States Code............................................     3

        From January 1998 through December 1998, the following actions
    occurred:

    Section 210:
        Charges filed.................................................     1
        Cases closed..................................................     1
        Cases pending as of December 31, 1998...............................
    Section 215:
        Requests for inspections filed................................    21
        Cases closed..................................................    18
        Cases pending as of December 31, 1998.........................     3
    Section 220:
        Unfair Labor Practice charges filed...........................    14
        Complaints issued.............................................     1
        Cases closed..................................................     9
        Cases pending as of December 31, 1998.........................     5

                          Workload and OSHA experience

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        I am delighted that the demands on some of your services
    are going down, which shows that Congress is beginning to
    understand some of the things that they have to do and they do
    not need to come running to you for advice and counsel.
        I am not surprised that the increase in OSHA is there. I
    remember when I was in the private sector, I walked into a
    company and they had a little sign hanging on the wall that
    said, if you think OSHA is a small town in Wisconsin, you are
    in real trouble. [Laughter.]
        So, we are beginning to discover what business people have
    discovered.
        At some point I would like to visit with you about what we
    have learned about OSHA that might be used to amend the law
    with respect to OSHA. I remember Senator Kempthorne and others
    were finding horror stories of OSHA requirements that defied
    all common sense. Someone was fined for improperly storing a
    toxic substance, and it turned out it was a squeeze bottle of
    Joy detergent that they put under the sink. Someone said that
    is improper storage of a toxic substance, and it is something
    every one of us does in our own homes all the time. There are
    not very many toddlers in the congressional work place who
    might get it and even fewer who might drink it. I think that
    was a case of regulatory overkill.
        One of the reasons I supported the CAA was because I wanted
    Congress to begin to understand those kinds of experiences. We
    had them routinely in the business world and legislators just
    kind of laughed us off. Now if we can have some examples of
    legislators who are really upset by some of the regulatory
    excesses, maybe we can change the law. You have become the
    repository of those kinds of examples. So, at some point I
    would like to come talk to you about that.
        Ms. Silberman. Well, we would like to talk to you about it
    as well. Our experiences in OSHA have been very interesting.
    Generally we have found that the Congress and the congressional
    employees are working in important ways in much safer
    circumstances because of the OSHA regulation. Now, we like to
    think that we are not unreasonable regulators, and I know that
    the law has been put to very good use, and particularly in the
    area of flammable substances. You all were working under
    conditions that were dangerous to you and that we have been
    able to correct.
        Senator Bennett. I am sure that is true. I am not in any
    way suggesting that OSHA should be repealed, just maybe fine
    tuned a little here and there.
        Senator Feinstein, do you have any questions?
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

                         potential additional Authority

        Ms. Silberman, I gather from your comment if you were to
    get the enhanced authority, you would need an additional budget
    allocation. Is that correct?
        Ms. Silberman. We are not sure of that, Senator. One of the
    experiences that we have had is that in the beginning, at least
    when we got the original authority, there was a front-loading,
    of necessity, for publications of materials, for education and
    information, and of course, in any new law there is a lot of
    activity in the beginning.
        My guess is that if we were to get the Library of Congress,
    the GAO, and the GPO in the way that the Board has recommended,
    that we might need some increase from what we have now reduced
    ourselves to. I have been loathe to get us into a situation
    where we would take these reductions and then get the increased
    authority and not be able to do it.
        But I think we are OK. So far, we are certainly OK.
    Everybody has been wonderful about being realistic about what
    the needs of this office are, and I would trust that that would
    continue if we were to get the increased authority.
        Senator Feinstein. Could I ask you, is the enhanced
    authority you are referring to on page 3 of your executive
    summary? Are those the recommendations for changes?
        Ms. Silberman. There are recommendations in two areas which
    actually interrelate. One set of recommendations has to do with
    those areas of the CAA laws, the 11 CAA laws, which were not
    made applicable by Congress when it passed the CAA.

                     Enforcement authority for retaliation

        Senator Feinstein. Well, one of the things that intrigued
    me was this prohibits intimidation or reprisal for opposing any
    practice made unlawful by the act or for participation in any
    proceeding under the act. What is that all about?
        Ms. Silberman. Well, that is retaliation. Congressional
    employees are protected from retaliation under the CAA, but it
    is a general protection for which the Office of Compliance has
    no enforcement authority.
        Senator Feinstein. But what kind of retaliation could there
    be?
        Ms. Silberman. Well, for coming to file a claim at the
    Office of Compliance, people could get fired. People can be
    demoted. People can be intimidated. It is the one area, I have
    to tell you, that our experience in 3 years is that we have
    insufficient enforcement authority. The report goes into that.
    The reason for that is that----
        Senator Feinstein. Are you saying that a Member of Congress
    or a Member of the Senate would punish somebody for filing a
    report?
        Ms. Silberman. A Member of Congress or a Member of the
    Senate is an employer in the sense that one is an employer
    under the private sector. So, it is possible that that could
    happen.
        But you also have to remember that there are 22,000
    employees covered under the CAA. They include the Architect of
    the Capitol, the Capitol Police, and other small and larger
    legislative entities.
        But reprisal and retaliation is the single most serious
    institution-threatening act that can be taken under many of
    these laws. It is true in the private sector. When I was Vice
    Chairman of the EEOC, those were the complaints that we took
    most seriously, and it is true in the other enforcement
    agencies.
        But you have to remember that under the CAA, the employees
    of the legislative branch have access to this wonderful
    alternative dispute resolution system. There is no
    investigation, and there is no enforcement of the law other
    than to go to court or to go into an adjudicative hearing.
        Retaliation is the one area where mediation and counseling
    does not seem to work as well. People are concerned about using
    it because they are concerned about the act itself.
        We have gone into that at some length, and there is a lot
    more about it in the report which I commend to you. We were
    asked by Congress, when you passed the CAA, to every 2 years
    review the effectiveness of the CAA in terms of new laws that
    have been passed and also our recommendations as to how it has
    worked. This was the report that was issued on January 1st of
    this year that has a lot of interesting stuff in it and I do
    commend it to you.
        Senator Feinstein. Could I ask you another question?
        Ms. Silberman. Sure.

                           additional record keeping

        Senator Feinstein. What kind of additional record keeping
    would be required of Members?
        Ms. Silberman. There is no record keeping required of
    Members, although there is considerable record keeping required
    in the private sector. That is another area of the law that
    Congress did not extend to itself which is part of the private
    sector law. This falls along the lines of what the Chairman was
    asking me before. The CAA does not completely apply the laws
    that are applied in the private sector, whether it is in OSHA--
    and certainly under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
        The lack of record keeping requirements is another omission
    that the Board looked to, and we believe that it would be very
    helpful both to Senators and Congressmen and other employing
    offices, as well as to employees when employees file a claim,
    if there were some record keeping so that we could use that for
    a factual analysis. But there is no record keeping requirement.
    Early on our Board decided that that was not a change that they
    would be able to make under the standards that were established
    under the CAA, that it would take a legislative change to make
    record keeping requirements necessary.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Ms. Silberman. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        I am interested in following up on Senator Feinstein's
    comment. The complaints that were actually filed. You say 12
    complaints were filed. These are those that are unresolved.
        Ms. Silberman. That is right. That is correct.
        Senator Bennett. How many employees do you deal with?
        Ms. Silberman. There are slightly over 22,000 employees.
        Senator Bennett. So, 12 complaints out of 22,000 is really
    quite an amazing record of accomplishment.
        Ms. Silberman. Well, yes, I think so. This is not a culture
    of complaint we have found. On the other hand, we also think
    that the law has worked as a deterrent and there has been
    widespread compliance. That is why when we went to do this
    102(b) report, the Board was very careful to try and look to
    those areas in which we thought that change was necessary. In
    general, I would like to reiterate again and again that the
    alternative dispute resolution system is really working and
    working well.
        Senator Bennett. I looked down this list of 12. There is
    only one that says retaliation for opposing practices made
    unlawful by the CAA.
        Ms. Silberman. I think that that is a result of the fact
    that retaliation claims are seldom made if there is little hope
    of--the nature of the complaint is such that you have to
    provide the kind of protection that will make it possible for
    those complaints to be brought.
        Senator Bennett. Well, thank you very much. This is very
    interesting.
        Ms. Silberman. Thank you and thank you all again for your
    unfailing support.
        Senator Bennett. We appreciate it.
        I do have one last question. It appears that the Office of
    the Architect of the Capitol has been a source of a number of
    complaints. You have a Deputy Executive Director for the House
    and a Deputy Executive Director for the Senate. Who is
    responsible for complaints when they do not come from either
    the House or the Senate?
        Ms. Talkin. I take on the Architect as well.
        Senator Bennett. You take on the Architect as well.
    [Laughter.]
        Ms. Talkin. As it were, that responsibility.
        Senator Bennett. I just wanted to make sure that it was not
    falling between the cracks.
        Ms. Talkin. Not at all.
        Ms. Silberman. They represent the major number of
    complaints that we get in all the areas. Of course, in the OSHA
    area, it is particularly true because they bear responsibility
    for the Senate and the House and the buildings.
        Thank you very much.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        The subcommittee is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 10:16 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Bennett and Feinstein.

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF
                CONGRESS
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
            DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
            MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
            WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
            RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN
            LINDA WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED SUPPORT SERVICES
            KENNETH E. LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
            HERBERT S. BECKER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
            FRANK KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE
                BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
            BEN BENITEZ, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN
                FOR HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES
            JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES
            KATHY A. WILLIAMS, BUDGET OFFICER

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Good morning. The subcommittee will come
    to order.
        This is our third hearing on the Legislative Branch budget
    for the fiscal year 2000. We will have one more hearing next
    Wednesday.
        As it comes to no surprise to anyone, because of my
    interest in the Y2K problem and area with respect to the
    Legislative Branch, we may have additional hearings in April on
    that issue. It would be very personally embarrassing to me if
    the rest of the government were ready and the one area where I
    have some leverage in the Legislative Branch were not ready.
        So we are reserving the right to have another hearing in
    April if it is necessary on that issue.
        Our first panel this morning is the Library of Congress and
    the Congressional Research Service, both of which are of great
    value and importance to the Congress.
        We welcome Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress,
    Mr. Dan Mulhollan, the Director of the Congressional Research
    Service, and General Scott, the Deputy Librarian of Congress.
    We are always happy to have you as well, sir.

                                 Budget request

        The Library is requesting $383.7 million in appropriated
    funds; $33.1 million in authority to use receipts, which is a
    5.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999 model. Of that
    amount, $71.2 million is for the Congressional Research
    Service.
        So we will hear a specific defense of those numbers from
    this panel.

                               prepared statement

        Senator Feinstein, do you have any opening comments?
        Senator Feinstein. I would ask to put those in the record,
    Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the hearing.
        Senator Bennett. Without objection, it will be in the
    record.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our witnesses here
    today. This is the third of our hearings on the fiscal year
    2000 budget, and we have a very heavy agenda this morning
    starting with the distinguished Librarian of Congress, Dr.
    Billington, who will testify along with his colleagues, Mr. Dan
    Mulhollan, the Director of the Congressional Research Service,
    and Ms. Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights. The
    Library of Congress performs very valuable and important
    functions, not only for the Legislative Branch in that it is
    Congress' library--a vast storehouse of materials and
    information that we use in the Congress--but it is also the
    world's largest and most comprehensive library. And, yet, the
    budget of the Library of Congress is very well managed. I note
    from materials that you provided, Dr. Billington, that the
    Library has experienced a decline of 13 percent in full-time
    equivalent positions (FTE's) since 1992. We look forward to
    receiving your testimony.
        Following the Library, I also look forward to welcoming Mr.
    David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, who
    is appearing before the subcommittee for the first time since
    his confirmation in November of last year. I note that Mr.
    Walker is assuming the comptrollership from a very
    distinguished predecessor, Mr. Bowsher, who successfully
    negotiated a 25 percent, congressionally-mandated funding
    reduction over a two-year period, 1995-1997. I note that since
    1992, the FTE level at the General Accounting Office has
    decreased by 39 percent. So, I also look forward to receiving
    the testimony of the Comptroller General.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, on this busy morning, I join you in
    receiving the testimony on this year's budget of the Government
    Printing Office from the Public Printer, Mike DiMario. GPO, as
    well, has been required to undertake cuts in its budget in
    recent years, and I welcome the testimony of Mr. DiMario in
    support of his budget request.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Senator Bennett. Dr. Billington, we welcome you. We are
    glad you are recovered from yesterday's indisposition. We are
    delighted to have you here.

                   opening remarks by dr. james h. billington

        Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first
    present my colleagues. This is the Deputy Librarian, General
    Donald Scott. With me also are Winston Tabb, the Associate
    Librarian for Library Services; Rubens Medina, Law Librarian,
    Linda Washington, Director of Integrated Support Services,
    Kenneth Lopez, Director of Security, Herbert Becker, Director
    of Information Technology Services, Marybeth Peters, the
    Register of Copyrights, Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director of the
    Congressional Research Service, Frank Kurt Cylke, Director of
    the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
    Handicapped, Ben Benitez, Acting Director of Human Resources
    Services, John Webster, Director of Financial Services, and
    Kathy Williams, Budget Officer.
        Senator Bennett. You probably should not have done that
    because my businessman's brain is immediately adding up the
    tab. [Laughter.]
        We welcome you all.
        Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before this
    subcommittee and thank you for your continued support now and
    over the years.
        Let me briefly highlight a few points from my full
    statement, already submitted.

                               Library's mission

        The Library of Congress is a totally unique institution
    with its national mission to serve the Congress and to
    facilitate the creative use of the world's knowledge for the
    good of our Nation.
        Fiscal year 2000 is a milestone year for the Library, which
    will be 200 years old on April 24, 2000. It is the oldest
    Federal cultural institution and the largest and most diverse
    collection of knowledge ever assembled in one place.
        By creating it, sustaining it, and using it, and by
    mandating it to serve other libraries and the Nation, as well
    as the Congress, the Congress of the United States has been,
    quite simply, the greatest patron of libraries in world
    history.
        The world of libraries is rapidly changing in the
    electronic age, and the Library of Congress is both leading and
    embracing this change in order to sustain its central role in
    America's unique system of providing free public access to
    knowledge.
        The Library is now not only offering access here on Capitol
    Hill to objects containing knowledge, but also has become a
    leading provider of free electronic information for citizens in
    every State--functioning 24 hours per day, receiving 3.5
    million electronic transactions every working day.
        We are in the midst of a dramatic transition from just
    receiving, processing, and serving primarily artifactual
    materials--this is to say, paper books and serials, films and
    tapes--to also receiving and serving the rapidly increasing
    number of materials that are available only in digital form.
        This chart (indicating) illustrates this dual function,
    with physical objects only on this side (indicating) and
    digital objects that are available everywhere throughout the
    Nation.

                              Library's challenges

        We have embraced the leadership challenge of blending the
    rapidly emerging electronic network with the still expanding
    traditional book culture. The world's production of books
    increased more than 6 percent last year, even as this
    electronic explosion was occurring.
        But we are also receiving and serving this material in
    digital form in order to better serve the Congress and the
    Nation.
        We have two key current overriding initiatives for meeting
    our strategic objectives, as illustrated here (indicating):
    providing massive digital access to information and, at the
    same time, streamlining and reengineering our handling of
    access to books and other traditional containers of knowledge.
        The three initiatives for which we are requesting added
    funding in this budget year are those that clearly help us meet
    both of these key objectives, that is to say, both the digital
    objective and the reengineering of traditional functions--the
    global legal network, the Electronic Copyright Office, and the
    electronic resources for storing so that we can retrieve
    digital collections. These contribute to both of these
    overriding objectives.
        While we have been the national leader in digitizing major
    archival collections for free educational use throughout the
    country, now we must develop an electronic repository of
    hardware and software for efficient storage and retrieval of
    digital materials originating elsewhere so that we can answer
    the questions that will come from the Congress and from the
    Nation about materials only available in those forms.
        Our ultimate goals are, again, as illustrated in this chart
    (indicating), are to provide usable knowledge in all formats
    that support the Congress and democratic government as well as
    memory and information resources for all Americans, especially
    for young people for educational purposes in their local
    communities, and, finally, to provide seamless one-step
    knowledge navigation in a secure electronic environment.
        So that is our future, as we see it, and our Digital
    Futures Task Force is now at work to draw up a blueprint for
    the electronic part of the Library's future.

                             Library's bicentennial

        The Bicentennial Year--next year--of the Library will be a
    decisive time for developing integrated, automated systems and
    for initiating staff succession programs in order to sustain
    and enhance the Library's critical role as a trusted knowledge
    navigator for Congress and the Nation.
        The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget supports the Library's
    mission and strategic plan which chart our course into an
    increasingly electronic future.
        Libraries being a link in this human chain that connects
    what happened yesterday and what is recorded almost exclusively
    in book and traditional form with what might take place
    tomorrow, they must not only include but also bring together
    traditional and digitized materials.

                                 Budget request

        The Library's budget request totals $383.7 million in net
    appropriations and $33.1 million in authority to use receipts,
    representing a net increase of 5.5 percent, or $20 million,
    over fiscal year 1999.
        Most of this increase--83 percent, in fact, or $16.6
    million--is needed simply to fund mandatory pay raises driven
    largely by the January 2000 pay raise of 4.4 percent and
    unavoidable price level increases. The other $3.4 million of
    the $20 million total increase is needed to meet critical
    growing workload increases net of program decreases, which are
    also considerable this year.
        The Library has 591 fewer actual FTEs than in 1992. We are
    doing a great deal more work. Moreover, we must hire and begin
    mentoring skilled professionals to replace our very large
    number of expected retirees. About 45 percent of our staff will
    be eligible to retire by the year 2004.
        The Library will be severely strained in the years ahead by
    the need for large-scale personnel training and replacement in
    what are often one-of-a-kind jobs. The Library will be further
    stretched by its necessary commitment both to sustain
    traditional services and to effect our transition into the
    electronic world.
        So we ask the committee's support so that the Library may
    head into the 21st Century with both expanded digital holdings
    and with the systems in place to maximize service for the
    Congress and to all Americans in their local communities.

                              prepared statements

        Mr. Chairman, each of you has a packet of materials
    providing further information about the Library. My colleagues
    and I will welcome any questions that you may ask.
        [The statements follow:]
                   Prepared Statement of James H. Billington
        Fiscal year 2000 is a milestone year for the Library of Congress--a
    Year of Great Celebration and Transition. On April 24, 2000, the
    Library will be 200 years old, the oldest Federal cultural institution
    in the country. By creating and sustaining the world's largest and most
    diverse collection of knowledge and mandating it to serve other
    libraries and the nation, the Congress of the United States has been
    quite simply the greatest patron of libraries in history.
        The Congress has continued to support the Library's traditional
    services as well as its new leadership role in delivering free
    electronic information to the nation. The Library's Internet site now
    receives more than three million electronic transactions every working
    day. This phenomenal usage nearly doubles that of the previous year.
        The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful
    to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a
    universal collection of knowledge and creativity. To fulfill this
    mission, the Library has amassed an unparalleled collection of more
    than 115 million items, a superbly knowledgeable staff, and cost-
    effective networks for gathering the world's knowledge for the nation's
    good.
        People and institutions in the information world are facing
    historic challenges. The world of librarians and libraries is rapidly
    changing, and the Library of Congress is both leading and embracing
    change to sustain its role as a trusted knowledge navigator and
    pathfinder for America's unique system of providing free public access
    to usable information. We are making the transition from a model of
    receiving, processing, and serving primarily artifactual materials
    (e.g., paper books and serials, films and tapes) to a model of also
    receiving, processing, and serving the rapidly increasing number of
    materials available only in digital form (see attachment #1). We are
    also making the transition from a model of primarily serving people
    over age 18 who use our collections in our reading rooms in Washington,
    D.C., to a model of serving people electronically everywhere,
    regardless of age--and contributing directly to K-12 education with the
    American Memory/National Digital Library program.
        The Bicentennial of the Library in fiscal year 2000 will be a
    decisive time for developing integrated automated systems and for
    initiating staff succession programs to sustain and enhance the
    Library's critical role as a trusted knowledge navigator for the
    Congress and the nation. The Library's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget
    supports the Library's mission and strategic plan, which charts our
    course into an increasingly electronic future. Libraries are a link in
    the human chain that connects what happened yesterday with what might
    take place tomorrow; they are the base camps for new discovery in the
    Information Age; they must include and integrate both traditional and
    digitized materials.
        The Library's budget request totals $383.7 million in net
    appropriations and $33.1 million in authority to use receipts--a net
    increase of 5.5 percent ($20 million) over fiscal 1999. Most of this
    increase ($16.6 million) is needed simply to fund mandatory pay raises
    (driven largely by the January 2000 pay raise of 4.4 percent) and
    unavoidable price-level increases; $3.4 million (of the $20 million
    total increase) is needed to meet critical growing workload increases
    (net of program decreases).
        Growing workload decreases total $8.25 million, including a $4.8
    million decrease resulting from higher copyright fee receipts, a $2.25
    million decrease resulting from two no-year projects (i.e., Meeting of
    the Frontiers and Lewis and Clark Bicentennial) that were funded in
    fiscal 1999, and a $1.2 million decrease resulting from a planned
    reduction in the Integrated Library System project costs.
        Growing workload increases totaling $11.6 million are offset by the
    decreases of $8.25 million which result in a net increase of $3.4
    million. Major increases include: $4.8 million for automation building
    blocks; $1.6 million for a staff succession program; $1.4 million for
    improved collections security; $.7 million for the Copyright
    registration process (funded by receipts); $.7 million for the Law
    Library; $1.5 million for a multi-year James Madison building
    workstation modernization project; and $.3 million for operational
    funding of the National Audio-visual Conservation Center.
                                 early history
        The Library of Congress is a living monument to the remarkable
    wisdom of the Founding Fathers who saw access to an ever-expanding body
    of knowledge as essential to a dynamic democracy. The Library's three
    buildings are named for Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James
    Madison. With the support of these Presidents, the Congress established
    the Library in 1800 as soon as it moved to the new capital city of
    Washington and established the Joint Committee on the Library as the
    first Joint Committee of the Congress in 1802.
        Jefferson, in particular, took a keen interest in the new
    institution. After the British burned the Capitol and the Library
    during the War of 1812, Congress accepted Jefferson's offer to
    ``recommence'' the Library and purchase his multi-lingual 6,487-volume
    collection (then the finest in America) at a price of $23,950. It
    contained volumes in many languages on everything from architecture to
    geography and the sciences. Anticipating the argument that his
    collection might seem too wide-ranging for Congress, Jefferson said
    that there was ``no subject to which a Member of Congress might not
    have occasion to refer.''
        Jefferson's ideals of a ``universal'' collection and of sharing
    knowledge as widely as possible still guide the Library. With
    Congressional blessing and support, the Library has grown to serve the
    Congress and the nation more broadly in ways that no other library has
    ever done--largely as a result of four milestone laws: (1) the
    copyright law of 1870, which stipulated that two copies of every book,
    pamphlet, map, print, photograph, and piece of music registered for
    copyright in the United States be deposited in the Library; (2) the
    1886 authorization of the first separate Library of Congress building
    that contained openly accessible reading rooms and exhibition space for
    the general public; (3) the 1902 law that authorized the Library to
    sell its cataloging records inexpensively to the nation's libraries and
    thus massively help to subsidize the entire American library system;
    and (4) the law in 1931 that established the program in the Library to
    create and supply free library materials to blind and physically
    handicapped readers throughout the country. Congress thus established
    the basis both for the continued growth of the collections and for the
    extension of the Library's services to citizens everywhere.
        In 1914, Congress created the Legislative Reference Service (LRS)
    as a separate entity within the Library of Congress to provide
    specialized services to ``Congress and committees and Members
    thereof.'' In 1946, the Congress granted LRS further statutory status
    within the Library and directed it to employ specialists to cover broad
    subject areas. Congress renamed the LRS the Congressional Research
    Service (CRS) in 1970 and enhanced its analytical capabilities by
    defining its policy role for the Congress and emphasizing research
    support to the committees of Congress.
        More recently, a series of Congressional statutes have created
    within the Library of Congress the American Folklife Center (1976), the
    American Television and Radio Archives (1976), the National Center for
    the Book (1977), the National Film Preservation Board (1988), and the
    National Film Preservation Foundation (1996)--further extending the
    Library of Congress' national role.
                           library of congress today
        The core of the Library is its incomparable collections--and the
    specialists who interpret and share them. The Library's 115 million
    items cover more than 530 miles of shelf space and include almost all
    media through which knowledge and creativity are preserved and
    communicated.
        The Library has more than 27 million volumes, including 5,700
    volumes printed before the year 1500; 12 million photographs; 4 million
    maps, old and new; 2 million audio recordings; 800,000 motion pictures,
    including the earliest movies ever made; 4 million pieces of music; 50
    million pages of personal papers and manuscripts, including those of 23
    Presidents of the United States as well as hundreds of thousands of
    scientific and government documents.
        New treasures are added each year. Recent acquisitions, to name a
    few, include: papers of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    covering her career before appointment to the Court; an addition of
    2,000 items to the papers of Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan;
    a collection of 500,000 items of Pamela Harriman, diplomat and
    political figure; the Martha Graham Archives, documenting the
    contribution of this pioneer in American dance; 32,000 papers of poet
    Edna St. Vincent Millay; additional organizational papers to
    collections already at the Library of the National Urban League and
    NAACP National and Washington Bureau; a large addition to the papers of
    architect I.M. Pei; sixty drawings of Pat Oliphant, the political
    cartoonist; text, images, and audio files representing a full
    ``snapshot'' of the public World Wide Web (some 500,000 Websites)
    donated by Brewster Kahle, President and Founder of Alexa Internet;
    three rare portraits of Georgia O'Keeffe by master photographer Alfred
    Stieglitz; and a Map of Philadelphia from 1752 with the first
    illustration of Independence Hall.
        Every workday the Library's staff adds approximately 10,000 new
    items to the collections, after organizing and cataloging them, and
    finds ways to share them with the Congress and the nation--through on-
    line access across the nation, through in-person access in the
    Library's reading rooms, and through cultural programs that feature the
    Library's collections and reach across the country.
        Major annual services include delivering more than 530,000
    congressional research responses and services, processing more than
    640,000 copyright claims, cataloging nearly 300,000 books and serials,
    and circulating more than 22 million audio and braille books and
    magazines to blind and physically handicapped individuals all across
    America. The Library also provides free on-line access, via the
    Internet, to its automated information files, which contain more than
    75 million records--to Congressional offices, Federal agencies,
    libraries, and the public. The Library of Congress programs and
    activities are funded by four salaries and expenses (S&E)
    appropriations, which support congressional services, national library
    services, copyright administration, library services to blind and
    physically handicapped people, and management support. A separate
    appropriation funds furniture and furnishings.
                           automation building blocks
        The Library is putting in place automation building blocks that
    will ensure a solid foundation for continuing into the next century its
    historic leadership role of delivering information services to the
    Congress and the Nation, setting bibliographic standards (saving
    libraries hundreds of millions of dollars by supplying them with
    bibliographic data), and providing free electronic access to knowledge
    and information for life-long learners everywhere.
        Key automation building blocks for the future include:
        Integrated Library System (ILS).--The ILS is scheduled to be
    operational at the beginning of fiscal year 2000 and will change the
    work patterns for more than half the Library's staff. The fiscal year
    2000 budget incorporates a planned decrease of $1,197,000 (from
    $3,544,000 to $2,347,000), which is $270,000 less of a decrease than
    projected two years ago in the original budget because of higher
    software maintenance costs. The ILS will coordinate and make more
    efficient all the Library's basic functions, such as acquisitions,
    cataloging, and research and loan services but will require a major
    redirection of resources to implement. As a result, the Library
    projects a slight short-term increase in its arrearage during fiscal
    years 1999 and 2000. The Library expects that any major savings from
    the ILS would begin to accrue at the end of fiscal year 2000 and begin
    appearing in the Library's fiscal year 2001 budget.
        Electronic Resources Information Project.--An important phase of
    the transition to an increasingly electronic future is the development
    of an approach to handling digital materials. The Library is requesting
    a fiscal 2000 increase of $964,764 for an initiative that consists of
    two parts: (1) a three-year project, at $520,836 per year, to develop
    and implement policies and procedures and the access management system
    necessary for incorporating into its collections and services the
    electronic products the Library acquires from others via copyright
    deposit, gift and purchase; and (2) a permanent base increase of
    $443,928 to fund the technical staff necessary to support the handling
    of electronic services in the custodial divisions. Just as the National
    Digital Library Program provided national leadership for the transition
    to a digital environment through conversion of archival materials
    delivered on the Internet, the Electronic Resources Information Project
    will provide leadership in the integration of material in electronic
    form into our traditional operations with books and other hard copy
    materials. This effort is a necessary initial step and a key part of
    the comprehensive plan for integrating all digital collections.
        Global Legal Information Network (GLIN).--GLIN is a cooperative
    international network in which nations are contributing electronically
    the full, authentic text of statutes and regulations to a database
    hosted by the Law Library of Congress. GLIN is the digital future of
    the Law Library, and an increase of $396,000 is requested to support
    GLIN's expanding from 12 to approximately 30 countries by the year
    2004: an addition of three to four countries per year. The Library
    plans to use receipts provided by participants and sponsors of GLIN to
    help support GLIN development, but these receipts will not be
    sufficient to ensure success until a critical mass of countries is
    achieved.
        Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation and Deposit
    System (CORDS).--CORDS is the electronic future of the Copyright Office
    and provides the public with an electronic means to submit copyright
    claims and documents which streamline internal processing. Development,
    as well as testing, will continue through successive phases with an
    increasing number of electronic registrations over the Internet. In the
    year 2004, the Library expects to receive at least 100,000 works (out
    of a total of more than 700,000 works) in digital form--such as census
    data, films, music, encyclopedias, scientific papers, and legal
    documents. An increase of $143,988 (funded by receipts) is requested to
    expand the CORDS system into new formats, provide on-line customer
    support, support increasing digital storage needs, and enhance
    technical capabilities.
        Automation Infrastructure Support.--An increase of $3,250,000 is
    requested to fund automation infrastructure support items: (1) $1.9
    million to upgrade the Library's digital voice switch, which has been
    in operation for more than a decade and will not be able to support the
    Library's growing telecommunications requirements in the 21st century;
    (2) $600,000 to increase computer server storage and capacity, which is
    necessary to meet the growing demand of the millions of transactions
    processed daily; (3) $500,000 to fund additional security and disaster
    recovery measures, which are becoming increasingly critical with the
    growth of on-line systems; and (4) $250,000 to support the first phase
    of a central financial management system replacement project.
        The Library is undertaking an institution-wide planning effort to
    coordinate these building blocks and other digital initiatives in order
    to provide the most effective information services for the 21st
    century. The Library is also seeking advice and counsel from the
    National Academy of Sciences as part of our planning process. The
    overall transition to modern electronic services Library-wide will be a
    multi-phase, multi-year process (see attachment #2). Re-engineering
    traditional functions and adding digital content are critical elements
    of the planning (see attachment #3).
        Fiscal year 2000 marks the end of the initial five-year National
    Digital Library (NDL) program, and the Library will present, in next
    year's budget, its plans for the future of our digital programs. The
    highly successful NDL program serves as a catalyst for institutional
    change, in addition to making possible access by millions of Americans
    to the Library's vast holdings. A recent PC Magazine review of the Top
    100 Websites stated: ``We've raved about The Library of Congress for
    years, and it just keeps getting better.'' We plan to build on our
    successful five-year NDL program to ensure public availability of
    additional high-quality content.
        With regard to the Library's Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness for
    automated operations, the Library has identified 99 mission critical
    systems and is on-schedule for making these systems Y2K compliant by
    September 30, 1999 (see attachment #4). The General Accounting Office
    conducts regular reviews of our progress in reaching Y2K compliant
    automated operations and reports quarterly to the Congress on our
    progress.
                               succession program
        The Library's ability to serve Congress and the nation depends in
    large part on its expert staff, particularly those who have intimate
    familiarity with the special collections or fluency in foreign
    languages. In 1996, Library Services undertook an analysis of its
    vulnerability to retirements and determined that by fiscal year 2004 50
    percent (1,077) of its staff would be eligible for retirement. An
    additional concern is the need to provide upward mobility opportunities
    for motivated technicians who have demonstrated their ability to move
    into professional positions. To respond simultaneously to both of these
    needs, the Library requests $1,010,016 to initiate a cost-effective
    Library Services Career Enhancement and Succession Plan that will give
    existing staff opportunities to advance to critical professional
    positions while also enabling the Library to recruit a new corps of
    junior technicians. Without the additional funding for technician
    positions, our newly promoted (and higher paid) curators will be forced
    to devote time to technician-level assignments, which would not be a
    cost-effective use of resources.
        The Congressional Research Service faces a similar challenge. One-
    half of CRS' staff of analysts, attorneys and reference librarians will
    be eligible to retire by the year 2006. To address this challenge, CRS
    began a research capacity risk assessment process in 1996 and
    identified the specific subject areas where staff were likely to retire
    in the next few years. CRS foresees reduced analytic capacity in a
    significant number of subject areas as early as the year 2000; these
    losses will accelerate and affect almost every area of legislative
    support to the Congress by 2004. Rebuilding this capacity requires a
    multi-year learning period during which new staff develop the breadth
    and depth of knowledge of the specific issues as well as of the
    legislative process. To meet these challenges, CRS has developed a
    multi-year plan to begin hiring replacement staff. In fiscal 1999, the
    Congress provided $435,858 to begin this hiring process, using the
    Graduate Recruit Program and the Law Recruit Program. The fiscal 2000
    request seeks $559,052 to continue to hire staff to ensure the
    continuity of services to the Congress, while remaining within the
    full-time equivalent level provided in the fiscal 1999 budget.
             security of library staff, collections and facilities
        During 1998, the Library's House and Senate oversight committees
    approved our comprehensive Security Plan, and the Congress approved
    supplemental appropriations totaling $16,975,000 for the Library's
    physical security. These two Congressional actions provide a framework
    for the security of the Library's collections, facilities, staff,
    visitors and other assets. As a result, additional security measures
    will be put in place during fiscal years 1999 and 2000: the recruitment
    of additional police, the installation of entry screening equipment at
    all public entrances, the design and installation of additional
    perimeter security enhancements, and the design and development of an
    improved intrusion detection system. The Library is working with the
    Capitol Police and the Architect of the Capitol to complete a
    memorandum of understanding, which will ensure proper coordination of
    all security efforts.
        The supplemental appropriations in fiscal 1999 did not provide
    additional funds for collections physical security initiatives. Thus,
    for the fiscal year 2000 budget, the Library is requesting an increase
    of $1,352,201 to support three key collections security enhancements.
        Reader Registration.--The Library's Security Plan specifies, as a
    minimum standard, the identification of all patrons requesting material
    from the collections. The Library is requesting an increase of $466,791
    to implement this minimum standard in all reading rooms.
        Marking and Tagging Library Materials.--The Library's Security Plan
    specifies, as a minimum standard, the marking and tagging of most
    material. The Congress approved and funded the marking and tagging of
    materials received via copyright deposit starting in fiscal 1999, and
    the Library requests $476,378 to expand marking and tagging to other
    sources of acquisitions (i.e., gifts, exchanges, purchases).
        Contract Security Monitors.--The Library is requesting an increase
    of $370,188 to improve the enforcement of security standards by placing
    security monitors in five additional reading rooms where unique
    materials often of great value are used--Law, Geography and Map, Music,
    Prints and Photographs, and Rare Book and Special Collections. Contract
    security monitors are now used in the Manuscript and Main reading rooms
    to ensure that each patron is registered, enforce personal belongings
    restrictions, monitor the activities of visitors, and examine materials
    being removed. The Library asks that this successful program be
    expanded to these five additional important reading rooms.
                                  law library
        The Law Library of Congress maintains the largest collection of
    legal materials in the world and also houses a unique body of foreign-
    trained lawyers to supply legal research and analysis, primarily for
    the Congress, on the laws of other nations, international law, and
    comparative law. More than 200 jurisdictions are covered by Law Library
    specialists, some 80 percent of the sovereign entities of the world
    that issue laws and regulations. The Law Library utilizes this talent
    to maintain and develop the breadth and depth of a demanding
    collection, as well as to provide reference services whenever either
    chamber is in session (as mandated by the Congress). These are daunting
    responsibilities. The U.S. Courts, the executive branch, and the legal
    community also depend heavily on the Law Library's collections.
        The Law Library has been creative in attempting to meet its
    responsibilities, particularly with the development of its Global Legal
    Information Network, but funding for 8.5 FTE's ($548,852) is crucially
    required. The funding would ensure adequate staffing for research and
    reference services, improve the security of the rare book room
    collections, and improve book retrieval services. The Law Library is
    also requesting $188,250 for contractual services to maintain the
    filing of looseleaf inserts. The integrity and currency of legal
    publications--which contain laws, administrative rules and regulations,
    and legal interpretations--must be maintained to be of continuing value
    to the Congress.
                                copyright office
        The Library's Copyright Office promotes creativity and effective
    copyright protection--annually processing more than 650,000 claims
    (representing more than 850,000 copies of works transferred to the
    Library) of which 550,000 claims are registered for copyright. The
    Copyright Office also responds annually to more than 395,000 requests
    for information.
        On July 1, 1999, the Copyright Office plans to increase its filing
    fees and other statutory fee services. The new schedule of proposed
    fees was presented to the Congress for consideration at the beginning
    of February. The basic filing fee for registering a claim will increase
    from $20 to $30, and other statutory fees, such as those for filing
    renewals or recording a document, will also increase. These increases,
    coupled with the fee changes for special services which went into
    effect July 1, 1998, represent increases in some cases of as much as
    225 percent. We expect fee increases to boost the Office's receipts by
    $4.8 million in fiscal year 2000. The new fee structure should provide
    70 percent cost recovery for registration, recordation and related
    services. The Register's statement provides a more detailed explanation
    of the proposed increase.
        The ability of the Copyright Office to serve the nation effectively
    requires restructuring and streamlining operations. The Library
    requests approval to use part of the additional receipts ($694,212) to
    redesign the workflow and to bolster its core staff of examiners, which
    will ensure the timely processing of claims for registration. To
    improve public service, efficiency, security, cash management, and
    contain costs, the Copyright Office must redesign its workflow and hire
    additional examiners.
        The Library also requests authority to use part of the additional
    receipts to fund further growth of the CORDS effort ($143,988, see
    automation building blocks) and to fund newly imposed storage costs
    ($268,204) levied by the National Archives and Records Administration.
       national library service for the blind and physically handicapped
        The Library administers a 67-year-old cooperative effort with state
    and local agencies and the United States Postal Service to provide free
    braille and recorded materials for blind and physically handicapped
    persons. The Library selects and produces full-length books and
    magazines in braille and on recorded disc and cassette and provides
    special playback equipment. We distribute reading materials and
    playback machines to a network of cooperating regional and subregional
    (local) libraries, who circulate those materials to eligible borrowers
    and returned to libraries by postage-free mail.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget maintains program services by funding
    mandatory pay and price level increases totaling $1,209,000. The budget
    also supports the exploration of alternative digital technological
    possibilities that would provide a less costly, more efficient,
    internationally acceptable, user-friendly delivery system.
                         library buildings and grounds
        The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
    structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library's
    buildings and grounds. In coordination with the Library, the AOC has
    requested a capital budget of $9,405,000, an increase of $6,238,000.
    The AOC capital budget includes funding for six projects totaling
    $6,350,000 in appropriations, that were requested by the Library.
    Library-requested projects, as well as AOC identified projects, are
    prioritized based on critical need and in accordance with both the
    Library's Strategic and Security Plans. The six projects support four
    important areas: (1) the security of our collections by providing
    additional electronic card readers, alarm devices, and other
    protections ($1,400,000); (2) the preservation of the Library's
    collections as a result of improved environmental conditions for
    exhibit space ($450,000); (3) the support for and oversight of initial
    construction efforts at the National Audio-visual Conservation Center
    ($500,000); and (4) the acquisition of additional storage space by
    funding a second collections storage module at Fort Meade, Maryland
    ($4,000,000). Properly storing the Library's collections in secure,
    safe, and environmentally sound facilities is the most important step
    toward preserving our collections for future generations.
        I urge the Committee to support the Architect's Library Buildings
    and Grounds budget and his position that reinvestment in the existing
    infrastructure is necessary and a prudent measure for the long-term
    support of legislative branch operations.
                        audio-visual conservation center
        The Library's House and Senate oversight committees have approved a
    Master Plan option for the renovation of the National Audio-visual
    Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia, which provides for the donor
    to retain ownership of the center through Phase I (2001). As a result,
    the Library requests an increase of $290,000 to fund fiscal 2000
    operating costs, which are estimated to be $509,000. When ownership of
    the Center is transferred to the AOC, these operating costs will be
    reallocated between the AOC and the Library, in accordance with normal
    Library Buildings and Grounds budget practices. In August 1998, the
    Library began to store film at the center.
                     national film preservation foundation
        The Library is requesting an increase of $250,000 to fund the
    government's matching grant in accordance with section 209 of Public
    Law 104-285. To date, the National Film Preservation Foundation has
    received pledges totaling $1.2 million ($500,000 in actual receipts)
    from private persons and State and local governments. The $250,000
    increase would fund the government's matching share and support the
    preservation of our film heritage.
            james madison building workstation modernization project
        The Library is requesting an increase of $1,528,000 to begin a
    five-year accelerated workstation modernization project in the James
    Madison building. We have replaced employee workstations in the Thomas
    Jefferson and John Adams buildings with modern furniture and equipment
    as a result of the renovation project. Furniture and equipment
    installed 20 years ago in the James Madison building, during an era of
    typewriters and long before the introduction of personal computers,
    must now be replaced to provide for ergonomically correct workstations
    in all three of the Library's Capitol Hill buildings. Poor workstation
    design contributes to the risk of injuries and lower staff
    productivity. An increase is required to complete the project within
    five years instead of the 16 plus years the current level of resources
    would require.
                              proposed legislation
        During the 105th Congress, the Library's oversight and
    Appropriations Committees agreed upon authorizing legislation for the
    American Folklife Center (AFC) and the National Audio-visual
    Conservation Center. The Library is moving expeditiously to secure all
    appointments to the AFC board and to realize the master plan for the
    Culpeper site approved last December. During the last Congress, we also
    secured legislation for a commemorative coin to be issued in April 2000
    in observance of the Library's Bicentennial. In discussing the
    Library's plans for its Bicentennial with our oversight committees, we
    stressed the continuing need for the Library to have improved statutory
    authority for its revolving and reimbursable funds. The 105th Congress
    approved a revolving fund to improve the accountability and statutory
    basis for the Cooperative Acquisitions Program. We will be seeking
    similar authority during this Congress to address the business
    operating needs of the Federal Research Division and FEDLINK, each of
    which serves a wide constituency within the Federal government. The
    bill is our top legislative priority for the 106th Congress. Passage of
    such legislation would address a critical element of our five-year
    legislative plan to improve and stabilize the Library's business
    operations.
                          office of inspector general
        The Library requests an increase of $139,343 to fund two
    professional auditors in the Office of the Inspector General. The two
    auditors would concentrate on reviews of the Library's physical
    security and automated systems, both areas of critical importance to
    our operations.
                             library's bicentennial
        The Library will use its Bicentennial in the year 2000 less to
    celebrate our past than to leave a legacy for the future. We have
    crafted--almost entirely with privately raised funds--a multi-faceted
    Bicentennial Program ``to inspire creativity in the years ahead by
    stimulating greater use of the Library of Congress and libraries
    everywhere.'' Bicentennial projects include: reconstituting Thomas
    Jefferson's original library through private donations; a ``Favorite
    Poem'' project spearheaded by the Library's Poet Laureate; a national
    photography contest, ``Beyond Words: Celebrating America's Libraries,''
    jointly conducted with the American Library Association; and a ``Local
    Legacies'' project to document unique local traditions from
    congressional districts throughout the nation for possible inclusion in
    the American Folklife Center's collections.
        The kick-off event later this year for the Bicentennial will be a
    symposium on the Frontiers of the Mind in the 21st Century, which will
    bring together at the Library leading thinkers in various disciplines
    to talk about the way their field will change in the 21st century. The
    concept of ``Gifts to the Nation'' is central to the Bicentennial
    effort. The Library itself is a Congressional ``Gift to the Nation.''
    Sharing the Library's collections and information about the Congress
    with Americans in their local communities through an expanded National
    Digital Library is the Library's major gift to the nation.
                                    summary
        The Library's budget request for fiscal year 2000--a net increase
    of 5.5 percent over fiscal 1999 or $20 million--supports the building
    blocks for realizing our strategic priorities. Most of this increase
    ($16.6 million) is needed to fund mandatory pay raises (driven largely
    by the January 2000 pay raise of 4.4 percent) and unavoidable price-
    level increases.
        By funding the Library's fiscal year 2000 budget request, the
    Congress would support the major transition of staff and operations
    that must take place to permit the Library to head into the 21st
    century with the foundation in place to provide the maximum service to
    the Congress and to its constituents.
        For fiscal year 2000, we submit a budget request that will enable
    the Library of Congress to continue to make major contributions to the
    work of the Congress and to the creative life of the American people.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.013

                                 [Attachment 1]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.014

                                 [Attachment 2]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.015

                                 [Attachment 3]

                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
    opportunity to present the budget request of the Copyright Office for
    fiscal year 2000. For more than 100 years the role of the Office has
    been one of leadership in the establishment of U.S. copyright policy
    and service to the nation. The record has been one of solid
    achievement, and this year is no different.
        During fiscal year 1998, the Copyright Office continued to advise
    the Congress on national and international issues and provided valuable
    assistance to the United States Trade Representative and other
    executive branch agencies.
        It also continued to create and maintain the on-line catalog of
    copyright and mask work registrations and recorded documents, to
    administer the various compulsory licenses and statutory obligations,
    to further the effort to create a workable automated registration,
    recordation and deposit system, and to offer technical, legal, and
    educational assistance in the international arena.
        The Copyright Office's public services include, responding to
    copyright information and reference requests in person, over the
    telephone, through written correspondence, and electronically through
    the Web; producing and supplying Copyright Office forms, circulars,
    studies, regulations, and other publications in paper and digital
    format; maintaining a 24-hour forms hotline and fax delivery service;
    providing up-to-date information digitally via the Copyright Office
    Website and through an electronic mailing list.
        In fiscal year 1998, the Office processed 644,639 claims,
    representing over 800,000 works, registered 558,645 claims,
    representing more than 700,000 works, recorded 14,368 documents, that
    included more than 250,000 titles, and responded to 395,456 information
    requests. It transferred to the Library approximately 850,000 copies of
    works at a value of $26,991,775. The Office collected $15,559,001 for
    registration, recordation and related services and approximately
    $217,000,000 in royalty fees for compulsory licenses.
    Fiscal Year 1999 Focus
        In fiscal year 1999, the Copyright Office will focus on five
    activities: Maintaining and enhancing the policy role of the Copyright
    Office in domestic and international copyright matters; continuing the
    development, testing, and implementation of the Copyright Electronic
    Registration, Recordation, and Deposit System (CORDS); improving the
    efficiency and timeliness in registration processing and in providing
    copyright reference and information services; enhancing the security of
    copyright deposits and records through the application of anti-theft
    devices to the collections and the adoption of other measures; and
    implementing Copyright Office fee setting legislation.
    Policy Role
        The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), enacted on October 28,
    1998, supports and enhances the policy role of the Copyright Office in
    domestic and international copyright matters. The DMCA resulted in the
    most extensive changes to Copyright Law since the general revision in
    1976. It was the result of nearly two years of intensive activity in
    the Congress, and the Copyright Office was privileged to work
    extensively with committees in both the House and Senate throughout the
    legislative process.
        Not only did the Copyright Office play a significant role in
    advising the Congress on matters relating to the DMCA, but the Act
    itself ensured that the Office will continue to play a leading role in
    copyright policy in the future. Section 401 of the Act confirms the
    authority of the Copyright Office to carry out the policy and
    international functions that it has carried out under more general
    statutory language for many years.
        On several of the substantive issues addressed in the DMCA the
    affected parties were very far apart, requiring Congress to craft a
    number of delicate compromises. One of these compromises establishes a
    new important and difficult activity for the Librarian of Congress and
    the Register of Copyrights--an ongoing administrative-rulemaking
    proceeding to evaluate the impact of the law's new prohibition on
    circumventing technologies that protect works from unauthorized access
    to determine whether users of ``particular class[es] of works'' would
    be hindered in their ability to make noninfringing uses of such works
    by virtue of the new anti-circumvention rules. If so, the Librarian,
    upon recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, will exempt such
    persons from the ban on acts of circumvention.
        There were a number of issues that were not ripe for resolution in
    the DMCA. Several matters under consideration--from distance education
    to encryption research--required further study. All six of those
    studies will be carried out either under the auspices of the Copyright
    Office or with the Office's participation within the next two years.
    Copyright Electronic Registration, Recordation, and Deposit System
            (CORDS)
        In fiscal year 1999 the Office will continue the development,
    testing, and implementation of CORDS, which, when fully developed, will
    allow all Internet users to submit electronically claims to copyright,
    copies of copyrighted works, and documents such as assignments and
    licenses.
        CORDS has no other prototypes available to build on; it is breaking
    totally new ground, and is doing so in a rapidly changing technical
    environment. It involves the use of many new technologies emerging with
    the growth of the Internet, including applying digital signature
    technology that authenticates the source and integrity of
    communications with far more depth of reliability and security built
    into it than basic FTP (file transfer protocol) or Email
    communications-based systems.
        In January 1999, the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office
    signed a landmark cooperative agreement with UMI that enables
    electronic submission of applications and deposits of doctoral
    dissertations and master's theses. This historic agreement also makes
    UMI the first partner to submit large numbers of copyright claims
    (20,000 annually, 400 per week) electronically through CORDS, which
    will be processed online.
        In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Copyright Office
    requests funding for (1) hiring one automation specialist (GS-13) and
    (2) increasing digital storage capability for CORDS. This will permit
    the Office to receive and process an increasing number of claims
    electronically at a substantial savings in staff time and physical
    storage space.
    Registration Operations
        The Copyright Office's goal is timely, quality service. Throughput
    time is a major concern to the copyright community. Despite valiant
    efforts by supervisors and staff, registration has gone from the norm
    of six to eight weeks in 1993 to six to eight months today. This is
    clearly unacceptable. Annually, we process approximately 650,000 claims
    to copyright covering more than 800,000 works and more than 1,000,000
    deposit copies per year, received with a fee in most cases, to be
    processed and routed through many stations in a function-based
    operation. At the end of fiscal year 1993, the Office had an inventory
    of 30,000 registration claims to be processed. Normal on-hand ranges
    for claims to be examined have historically been 30,000 to 45,000.
        Beginning in fall 1993, the examiner staff began to decline because
    of retirements, buyouts, budgetary constraints, and resignations. Over
    the next three years, the Examining division lost 26 FTE's, or 38
    percent, of its examiner staff. Hiring freezes caused by the Copyright
    Office budget constraints, and the development of the new Library of
    Congress hiring system prevented the Office from replacing examiners
    until 1997. Today, there are 52 examiners on staff, only 80 percent of
    1993 levels.
        To compensate for reduced staff, the Examining Division has held
    facilitative sessions with staff, offered overtime, cross-trained and
    utilized staff from other divisions, initiated the use of email and fax
    correspondence with applicants, streamlined correspondence with
    frequent applicants, networked correspondence preparation, and
    initiated better use of technician staff to process uncomplicated
    claims.
        Although these measures are effective in reducing more backsliding,
    they are not sufficient to recoup the losses. Sixteen new examiners
    have been hired and are becoming productive; however, the arrearage
    remains at 125,000 claims. While the division may be able to hold the
    arrearage at the current level when the new hires are fully trained,
    there are not enough examiners to reduce the backlog and achieve
    currency.
        To build a cadre of copyright examiners sufficient to ensure the
    issuance of timely copyright registration certificates will require the
    funding to hire eight additional examiners (GS-7) which is requested in
    the fiscal year 2000 budget.
        We are also seeking authority to reimburse the National Records
    Center ($268,204) for storage of Copyright Office records.
                Restructuring the Registration Process in Fiscal Year 2000
        To effectively serve the public and the copyright community in the
    new Millennium, the Copyright Office must restructure and streamline
    the registration and recordation processes. Funding for this effort is
    included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Restructuring will
    improve public service, enhance operational efficiency and security,
    contain costs, respond to the need to acquire and process works fixed
    in new formats, and meet the demands of the copyright community for a
    reduction in the claims arrearage and the speedier processing of
    claims.
        This initiative entails: hiring eight additional copyright
    examiners (GS-7) to achieve and maintain currency in registration of
    copyright claims and one automation specialist (GS-13) and increasing
    digital storage capability for CORDS, as stated earlier; hiring a
    project manager, (GS-15) NTE 5 years, who is an expert in Copyright
    Office procedures, to oversee and coordinate the restructuring project
    throughout the planning and implementation phases, work with the
    contractors, head up a task force of Copyright Office staff,
    communicate with and collect input from management, staff, unions, and
    customers, and evaluate the statutory impact, if any, of restructuring;
    and hiring a consultant to conduct a process redesign study to develop
    and implement a restructuring plan for the Office's major registration
    processing operations and associated functions to enhance operational
    efficiency and reduce handling of materials.
        There are numerous benefits to restructuring the registration
    process. The value of our records is greatest when up-to-date
    information on new works is expeditiously made available to the public.
    Increased staff and more efficient operations will maximize the
    timeliness of additions to and public accessibility of our records.
    Office restructuring and electronic filing via CORDS for a growing
    percentage of applicants are needed to maintain reasonable operating
    costs in future years and keep user fees, which are based on cost, from
    escalating to levels unacceptable to the Congress and beyond the means
    of copyright owners, particularly individual authors. Restructuring
    will permit better control over material and result in fewer
    opportunities for misplacement and pilferage. Increasing the use of
    electronic filing via CORDS will reduce the quantity of materials that
    require physical handling and storage.
    Security Program
        The Library of Congress has embarked on a major security effort
    with regard to its collections. The Copyright Office with the Library
    of Congress has developed a multi-year plan to improve security. In
    fiscal year 1998, the Copyright Office conducted five Risk Assessments,
    that identified control weaknesses and developed plans of action to
    reduce our vulnerability. In fiscal year 1999, the Copyright Office
    began implementing these plans. Additionally, the Office received
    fiscal year 1999 funding to install card readers, institute ownership
    markings and bar coding systems, and security devices for print and
    non-print material.
    Fee Increases
        On February 1, 1999, I submitted to Congress a proposed schedule of
    fees for filing copyright claims, recording documents and providing
    related services. These fees would replace the fees specified in
    section 708(a)(1)-(9) of the copyright law. Our goal is to implement
    these and other new fees on July 1, 1999. Our proposal would increase
    the filing fee for basic (as opposed to supplementary or renewal)
    registrations from $20 to $30. Other statutory fees, such as those for
    recording a document, researching our records and providing a report of
    our results, will increase to levels necessary to recover costs. The
    new fee structure is expected to provide 70 percent cost recovery for
    registration and related services. In fiscal year 2000, higher fees are
    expected to increase the Office's receipts by $4.8 million, fund the
    budget initiatives and reduce the Office's net appropriation by
    $2,336,000.
        With respect to increasing our fees, I followed the provisions of
    the Technical Amendments Act, effective November 13, 1997, which
    require the Register of Copyrights to conduct a study of costs incurred
    by the Office for the registration of claims, the recordation of
    documents, and for other related services. On the basis of the study
    and public policy considerations, and subject to congressional review,
    registration, recordation and related statutory fees may be raised to
    recover reasonable costs, including an adjustment for inflation.
    However, the new fees must be fair and equitable and support the
    objectives of the copyright system.
        The Office worked with two consulting firms. One firm provided cost
    accounting expertise that produced an in-depth analysis of copyright
    costs; the other provided expertise in the new federal ``Managerial
    Cost Accounting Standards.'' In order to address the need for fees to
    be fair and equitable and to give due consideration to the objectives
    of the copyright system, I sought information from authors, copyright
    owners, the general public and from the Library of Congress.
        The Office published a notice of proposed fee increases that
    contained two alternative preliminary fee schedules, each of which
    would recover the costs for providing registration and other statutory
    services, and requested written comments on the two fee schedules and
    offered the public the opportunity to testify orally at a public
    hearing. The Office received significant input from the intended
    beneficiaries of the copyright system and users of Copyright Office
    services. Organizations representing authors and small publishers urged
    the Office to set fees lower than the amounts required to fully recover
    basic registration expenses, noting that registration is required for
    enforcement of a copyright, and that registration before infringement
    takes place is generally necessary to obtain the crucial remedies of
    statutory damages and attorneys' fees.
        Many commenters mentioned the hardship higher fees would impose on
    individual authors, noting that the Internet has decreased their
    ability to regionalize the sale of their works--sales are now global.
    They urged that the fee be kept at its current level and asserted that
    the lower fee for individual authors proposed in the second schedule
    was too high and would result in decreased applications for copyright
    registration.
        I evaluated all testimony and comments and took into account the
    possibility that a large increase in fees could result in a concomitant
    decline in registrations which would jeopardize the stability of the
    registration system and have a long-term effect on user fee revenues.
    It would also erode the Office's receipt of valuable deposits, which
    form the underpinning of the Library's Americana collections. The
    schedule of fees sent to Congress proposes increasing the basic
    registration fee by 50 percent; however, some other fee services would
    increase by as much as 225 percent.
    Justification
        Determining an exact figure for an appropriation reduction in
    fiscal year 2000 is an extremely difficult task because of the
    uncertainties related both to the precise fees to be assessed and the
    impact on demand for services. Further, a fee increase carries its own
    costs, including handling claims arriving with insufficient fees,
    which, during the first several months, may represent nearly half of
    all submissions. History demonstrates that any fee increase negatively
    affects demand for services for at least the first year following the
    increase. The Office's income projections are based on an expected 20
    percent decline in demand for registrations, the fee service which
    provides the largest amount of revenue.
        Since income in fiscal year 2000 depends on an unpredictable
    decline in demand and the possibility that our proposed fees might not
    meet with Congressional approval, and thus might not be implemented at
    all, the Office believes it is essential to adopt a conservative
    approach and request a moderate net appropriation reduction and a
    moderate Offsetting Collections Authority increase for fiscal year
    2000. If, as is hoped, income exceeds expenditures, the Office can
    apply that income toward an appropriation reduction for fiscal year
    2001, a year where income projections can be calculated with more
    certainty based on a half year's experience under the new fee
    structure.
    Summary
        In its fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Office is seeking
    authority to fund new initiatives. They include the funding to hire
    eight examiners (GS-7), one project manager for our restructuring
    efforts (GS-15) and one automation specialist (GS-13) and funding to
    increase our digital storage capacity ($70,000), and to conduct a
    process engineering study ($400,000) to restructure our processes plus
    equipment and software ($16,000) for the project manager. We are also
    seeking authority to reimburse the National Records Center ($268,204)
    for storage of Copyright Office records.
        Funding our operational improvements, including increasing our
    digital storage space for claims that are submitted through CORDS,
    would support our efforts to become more efficient, to improve public
    service, and to transition to the global networked society of the 21st
    century. Approval of our request would still allow you to reduce the
    Office's net appropriation by $2,336,000.

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        I have a few questions, some of which I will submit to you
    in writing. But first I think the thing we should do now is
    this.
        Mr. Mulhollan, since we are also going to focus on your
    budget as an independent part of the overall Library budget,
    perhaps we ought to have you make a few comments before I get
    into questions. Then the questions can go back and forth.

                     opening remarks by daniel p. mulhollan

        Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is a pleasure to appear before you and Senator Feinstein
    to discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request for CRS. I want
    to thank this subcommittee for the support it has given to CRS
    in the past, for the confidence you have shown in us, and for
    the close working relationship that you have made possible.
        As the shared resource of Congress, I believe our request
    will continue to permit CRS to provide the highest level of
    legislative assistance both economically and efficiently.
        Our budget request contains only those funds necessary to
    maintain services to the Congress now and into the future.

                            CRS request for funding

        Our request for funding has two components. The first is to
    cover mandatory costs of personnel, which constitute 90 percent
    of CRS's total operating budget. The other 10 percent of costs
    are allocated for the tools required to perform research and
    analysis.
        We are also asking that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation
    cover cost increases due directly to the effects of inflation.

                              CRS succession plan

        A second component of the request is to fund the second
    year of our 3 year succession plan for maintaining research
    capability, one of a number of steps we have taken to preserve
    institutional memory and to insure continuity of service.
        The plan is designed to insure this analytic expertise for
    Congress by enabling current staff to transfer to new staff
    their institutional memory, knowledge of the legislative
    process, and commitment to confidentiality, objectivity,
    timeliness, accuracy and responsiveness.
        As in the past, we have made every effort to hold down
    costs and, at the same time, insure continued Congressional
    access to our expertise and high productivity. Let me assure
    you that we remain committed to work with our fiscal year 1999
    budgeted full-time equivalent positions.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, in the past year we have
    taken steps to insure that CRS remains a cost effective shared
    resource to the Congress. Our activities are designed to secure
    our research and analytic capacity and to facilitate access to
    our services.
        Some examples include: a large-scale realignment of our
    staff resources, which entails clustering experts and their
    subject responsibilities around major public policy issues,
    thereby broadening the policy context of research units;
    refining the focus on the current legislative agenda of the
    Congress; and streamlining research management.

                                 CRS home page

        We have also been enhancing the CRS home page to meet
    Congressional needs, including making all CRS products
    available electronically--more than 2,800--and piloting a new
    service, which we call electronic briefing books, as well as
    expanding our capacity to link CRS products to legislation.
        Further, as part of our continuing efforts, we are
    developing and testing a more sophisticated legislative
    planning system and continuing our professional development
    details for CRS staff.
        In terms of support for the research process, I would like
    to bring you up to date on three activities.

                               CRS Y2K compliant

        First, as a result of early planning, all of CRS's mission
    critical computer systems, for which we are directly
    responsible, are now Y2K compliant.
        A second activity, support for the Legislative Information
    System, is also progressing on track. In 1998, CRS, with the
    Library, completed the major tasks approved by the oversight
    committees and in 1999, our primary focus is on insuring that
    the requirements for Y2K are fully addressed.
        The major task now is to complete the work for exchanging
    legislative data between the Library and each chamber.
        The target date for completion of this work is the end of
    June.

                              CRS security issues

        Information security issues also remain a high priority
    because of our technical link to Congressional systems and our
    own confidential relationship with you. We are implementing
    recommendations that arose from a 1997 National Security Agency
    study and our own continuing review of the security of all CRS
    systems.

                      public dissemination of CRS products

        Finally, as the subcommittee is aware, legislation has once
    again been introduced to make the entire inventory of CRS
    products on the CRS home page directly available to the public
    via the Internet.
        We appreciate the sponsors' expression of the high regard
    for our products and the usefulness of these products in
    informing the public's understanding of the legislative issues.
    We also appreciate that this year the sponsors have sought to
    address some of the concerns previously identified which would
    adversely affect our ability to service Congress if this
    proposal is implemented.
        However, I consider myself obligated to call to the
    committee's attention certain unintended consequences still
    presented by the current version of these proposals. With the
    committee's permission, I would like to submit for the record
    analyses which focus on the legal issues, costs, and other
    implications of these bills.
        Senator Bennett. Without objection.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to
    appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request
    for the Congressional Research Service. I first want to thank this
    Subcommittee for the support it has given to CRS in the past and to
    express my gratitude for the confidence you have shown in the Service
    and the close working relationship which you have made possible.
        My testimony presents the CRS budget request for your
    consideration, outlines briefly how your continued support will allow
    us to offer improved services to the Congress, and describes ways in
    which CRS is meeting the changing needs of the Congress by efficient
    and effective use of staff and other resources.
        Mr. Chairman, as we at CRS meet the challenges of the new year and
    take advantage of the opportunities arriving in the new millennium, we
    remain focused on meeting the many needs of the Congress and we remain
    committed to supporting your policy deliberations throughout the
    legislative process. We are dedicated to the values imbued in the
    Service's charter--namely, to provide the Congress with comprehensive
    research, analysis, and information services that are on-time,
    objective, non-partisan, and confidential. We also remain vigilant to
    ensure that we provide cost-effective services to the Congress. As a
    shared resource serving all Members and committees, I believe that CRS
    provides the highest level of legislative assistance economically and
    efficiently.
                               crs budget request
        The budget request I submit today contains only those funds
    necessary to maintain CRS services to the Congress, now and into the
    future. Our request for fiscal 2000 is $71,255,000, an increase of
    $4,131,000 over fiscal 1999. This requested increase has two
    objectives: (1) to sustain current services and cover the increased
    cost of our current staff and nonpersonals, and (2) to fund the second
    year of our three year succession plan for maintaining research
    capacity, preserving the institutional memory, and ensuring continuity
    of service over the next few years, as half of our staff become
    eligible to retire.
        We have made every effort to hold down costs and at the same time
    ensure continued congressional access to our expertise and high
    productivity. Our request for maintaining current services covers
    mandated increases in compensation, namely cost-of-living increases
    ($3,424,148) and price level increases in nonpersonals ($147,800).
        The second part of the request will help us ensure that we can
    maintain our research capacity and services to the Congress at a time
    when many of our most expert and experienced staff will retire. The
    funding requested, $559,052, will permit CRS to continue to hire entry
    level staff in anticipation of this large number of retirements. Let me
    assure you that we remain committed to work within our fiscal 1999
    budgeted full-time equivalents.
                          maintaining current services
    Analytic and Information Research Expertise
        CRS is the only resource available to the Congress that is
    dedicated to providing balanced, nonpartisan, and confidential policy
    analysis to Members and congressional staff at all stages of the
    legislative process. We have worked hard to ensure that we offer these
    services in the most efficient and effective manner possible. In fiscal
    1998, CRS responded to more than 560,000 congressional requests for
    research, analysis, and information, assisting every Member and
    committee of the Congress. In fiscal 1998, responding to congressional
    needs, CRS created over 1,000 new reports and issues briefs,
    distributed over 632,000 of these documents, and our analysts prepared
    over 2,400 confidential memoranda for the use of individual Members and
    staff.
        Examples of CRS research support during the second session of the
    105th Congress underscore the breadth and range of assistance we
    provide to the Congress. CRS analysts and information specialists
    provided assistance to Members and staff on issues such as banking
    regulatory reform; biomedical research and applications; campaign
    finance reform; changes in clean air mandates; elementary and secondary
    education reform; food regulation and agricultural income support;
    foreign policy and regional issues; impeachment; patient protection
    legislation; and IRS reform.
        I am also pleased to report that the bipartisan leadership asked
    CRS to conduct the official policy orientation for the United States
    Senate, held at the Library in December, and the new Member issues
    seminar for the House of Representatives, held in Williamsburg,
    Virginia in January. Both programs were well attended and by all
    accounts were extremely informative and useful to the new Members.
    Management Initiatives
        Recognizing the high expectations of the Congress and its standards
    for excellence, we have launched several initiatives designed to better
    tailor our services to congressional needs and to exploit rapidly
    evolving technology supporting research and communications. CRS strives
    not only to respond expeditiously, but also to deliver its products and
    services in the manner and form that Congress finds most useful.
    Illustrations of this are interdisciplinary team responses to
    legislative requests on particularly complex issues, such as
    presidential impeachment, holocaust victim compensation, terrorism, and
    health care financing; electronic briefing books on the CRS Home Page
    providing quick electronic access to information, analysis, and key
    documents on current issues such as social security reform, the tobacco
    settlement, electric utilities deregulation, and global climate
    control; direct fax deliveries of the weekly CRS Legislative Alert to
    assist in preparing for floor action each week; enhanced access to our
    products through more effective indicators of product contents; and the
    development and testing of CRS legislative planning services to provide
    Congress an easily accessible online source of CRS experts, products,
    and services for issues on the legislative agenda.
        In the next year and continuing into the twenty-first century, the
    Congress will work in an increasingly interdependent, fast-paced
    environment which will generate intensified needs for readily available
    and reliable analysis, research, and information. The Congress likely
    will face several important and distinctive challenges that we have
    seen building in the past few years: growing complexity of legislative
    policy questions, polarization of policy issues, sizeable Member and
    staff turnover, increasing reliance on, and pressure generating from,
    advancements in technology, growing proliferation of information
    resources, and given the devolution of Federal responsibilities to the
    states, the difficulty in obtaining authoritative and comparable state
    data, and continued focus on the budget constraints, with consequent
    pressure for policy initiatives through appropriations or revenue
    changes. CRS is prepared to assist you as you face these challenges.
    Technology Initiatives
        Besides commitments to these management initiatives, CRS has made
    some important strides in technological improvements to our existing
    services. New online search capabilities make it possible for
    congressional users to find relevant information more quickly and
    predictably on the CRS Home Page. The number of accessions to the Home
    Page by the Congress has increased from 135,825 to 238,385 in the past
    year, an increase of 75 percent.
        Last year, in addition to creating electronic briefing books, we
    developed more efficient document delivery on the CRS Home Page by
    providing a more complete collection of full-text CRS reports and
    introducing public policy literature abstracts online. We have also
    undertaken an effort to highlight timely CRS products that analyze
    current legislative issues, providing a searchable database with direct
    links to relevant legislation and other CRS products.
        In 1997, CRS began formal planning to prepare for the digital
    conversion issues presented by the year 2000 (Y2K). We undertook a
    comprehensive examination of our systems, with necessary conversions
    and testing scheduled for completion well in advance of the year 2000.
    I can report that all of our ``mission critical'' systems are now
    compliant. We will continue to work with the Library to ensure that we
    meet all requirements under the GAO Year 2000 review of legislative
    branch entities.
        Complementary efforts are under way to provide staff with efficient
    work stations through needed upgrades in hardware and software, network
    enhancement, expanded sharing of data, and improvements in
    communications technology. CRS has given special attention on matters
    related to information security--issues which we are treating as high
    priority, both because of our confidential relationship with you, our
    clients, and because of our technical links to congressional systems.
       developing and maintaining an information and research capability
        In the years since the passage of the Legislative Reorganization
    Act of 1970, CRS has continuously sought to fulfill its mandate ``to
    develop and maintain an information and research capability'' [2 U.S.C.
    166(d)(8)] to perform its responsibilities under that act in supporting
    the legislative work of the Congress. It has done so by building,
    maintaining, and strengthening its research and information capacity
    which covers all the subjects of legislative work undertaken by the
    Congress.
    Succession Planning
        In implementing the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS
    hired several hundred staff in the 1970's. Many of these staff are
    still in CRS, and have, over the subsequent decades, become the core
    experts on whom Congress relies for research and analysis. Individually
    and collectively they have developed in-depth knowledge of the public
    policy areas they cover and have accumulated valuable institutional
    memory about how the Congress has dealt with these subjects. Eligible
    retirees, many of whom have spent 30 years providing expert policy
    analysis and research to you and your predecessors, will be exceedingly
    difficult to replace.
        Since many of these staff will be retiring soon, CRS will lose
    expertise in a significant number of areas, including public finance,
    social security, health, constitutional law, biomedical policy, natural
    resources policy, macroeconomics, and military personnel. And, by 2006,
    when fifty percent of all current CRS staff will have become eligible
    to retire, the losses will affect virtually every major legislative
    issue area.
        The second circumstance that leads us to make this budget request
    is that between fiscal 1992 and 1998, CRS staffing decreased by 122
    full-time equivalents (FTE's) as a result of government-wide budget
    reductions. Consequently, CRS was unable to fill behind many of the
    resignations, deaths or retirements of its professional staff, and
    therefore does not now have a normal distribution of senior and junior
    staff, which would have provided an orderly transfer of institutional
    knowledge when experts retire.
        In response to the future wholesale loss of senior experts, we have
    developed an ongoing process to assess and address this heightened risk
    to our analytic and research capacity. We conducted a staff survey of
    retirement plans to gain detailed information about the scope of the
    problem, and undertook an assessment of the impact of individual
    retirement plans on overall analytic capacity, by subject area, through
    2006. We also developed a number of strategies to provide more
    flexibility in assigning work to current staff, including details and
    organizational adjustments. However, such measures do not, by
    themselves, address the urgent problem of training replacement staff
    and positioning them to meet your analytic and research needs in time
    to avoid serious disruptions in the quality, level, breadth, and
    timeliness of service.
        Last year, we instituted our multi-year plan designed to ensure
    that CRS can maintain its analytic expertise despite the retirement of
    significant numbers of CRS staff now and continuing in the near future.
    The plan provides for hiring a limited number of new staff in key issue
    areas before experts retire. This will enable current staff to transfer
    institutional memory on issues, knowledge of the legislative process,
    and commitment to CRS service qualities of confidentiality,
    objectivity, timeliness, accuracy, and responsiveness, and to assist
    new staff in developing trust relationships with clients. In fiscal
    1999, Congress provided $435,858, which allows CRS to use the Graduate
    Recruit and Law Recruit Programs and begin hiring in some of the
    highest risk areas. For fiscal 2000, CRS is requesting $559,052 for
    phase two, to permit filling positions in additional high risk areas.
        To work independently, entry-level staff, who are already well-
    trained in their disciplines, must acquire and refine skills and
    ability to (1) understand the legislative/budget procedures as
    practiced; (2) examine issues from an unbiased, nonpartisan
    perspective; (3) present analysis and research in a manner and form
    that best meets the clients' legislative needs; and (4) develop and
    maintain contacts with subject experts in academia, government
    agencies, and elsewhere.
        Newly hired staff work closely with senior analysts in an
    apprenticeship capacity, whereby the senior staff can share their
    knowledge and experience in their discipline within the legislative
    context. CRS found during the period since the 1970 Legislative
    Reorganization Act that it takes a number of years for an entry level
    analyst to develop subject expertise and knowledge of the legislative
    environment in order to handle complex issues in the thorough,
    confidential and timely manner of a senior analyst.
    Realignment--Deploying Resources Strategically
        In addition to our succession efforts, we have undertaken a large
    scale redeployment of CRS staff resources to secure the capacity of our
    research and analysis for future Congresses.
        Planning for this effort included meeting with House and Senate
    leadership and with individual Members to discuss the work of the
    Service and how it could better meet their needs, soliciting input from
    CRS staff on a wide range of issues, examining CRS workload and
    distribution of work, assessing implications of potential loss of
    expertise through retirement and succession planning to deal with such
    losses, and identifying strategic issues and implications for CRS of
    the changing characteristics of the Congress. Throughout these
    discussions and evaluations the Service emphasized the importance of
    maintaining high-quality responses to congressional requests,
    strengthening interdisciplinary interchanges among CRS staff to improve
    those responses, and enhancing communications between CRS and the
    Congress as well as within CRS itself. Implementation of this
    realignment of our staff resources follows an agreement with the
    Congressional Research Employees Association (International Federation
    of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 75), to resolve concerns
    about the realignment.
        This initiative aligns our staff resources more closely to the
    legislative needs of the Congress by clustering experts and their
    subject responsibilities around major public policy issue areas,
    broadening the policy context of research units, refining the focus on
    the current legislative agenda of the Congress, and streamlining
    research management.
        In addition to the succession initiative and the realignment, we
    are undertaking a number of important activities to build research
    capacity within current resources. Examples of these include:
    establishment of professional development details for CRS staff;
    institution of a visiting scholars program to bring temporarily to CRS
    respected experts who work in emerging issue and discipline areas;
    operation of professional volunteer programs using gratuitous services
    contracts; and use of contracts to perform tasks for the Congress
    requiring knowledge and skills not resident in the Service and not
    needed on a long-term basis.
     special congressional directives: legislative information system (lis)
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, CRS has been tasked to coordinate the
    development of an online retrieval system to meet the requirements of
    both the Senate and the House for the most accurate, up-to-date, and
    complete legislative information available. The Library has been tasked
    to provide the technical support for the development of that system.
        The initial impetus for this effort came from the Committee on
    Appropriations, which directed the Library to study duplication among
    the various bill tracking systems maintained by the House, Senate, GPO,
    and the Library. Subsequently, the Senate Committee on Rules and
    Administration and the Committee on House Administration approved a
    plan for each chamber to be responsible for the creation and management
    of its own legislative information, and for a coordinated retrieval
    system to be developed and maintained by CRS and the Library.
        During 1998, CRS and the Library completed the major tasks approved
    by the oversight committees. These efforts focused on adding
    legislative files and much of the retrieval functionality required by
    new and occasional congressional users as well as by expert users.
    Significant work was also begun on improving system availability,
    response time, and security. Major collaborative efforts with the
    Senate and House were undertaken to begin planning for development of
    Y2K-compliant systems for the exchange of data.
        In 1999 our primary focus will be on ensuring that the requirements
    for Y2K are fully addressed. The LIS retrieval software has already
    been successfully tested by the Library. The major task now confronting
    us is to complete the work begun last year on the systems for
    exchanging legislative data between the Senate and the Library and
    between the House and the Library. In the Senate, we are working
    closely with the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant At Arms to
    ensure that this work is completed on schedule. In the House, we are
    working closely with the Clerk of the House and the Chief
    Administrative Officer. The target date for completion of this work by
    the Senate, House and Library is the end of June.
        During fiscal 2000, CRS will work on LIS tasks which were deferred
    in order to take care of immediate Y2K concerns, and others which will
    depend upon the satisfactory completion of the 1999 tasks, as well as
    any additional requirements which emerge from the House and Senate. CRS
    and the Library are uniquely qualified to play this role for the
    Congress. While LIS development has placed a strain on CRS resources,
    we have to date been able to accomplish these tasks and meet evolving
    requirements utilizing existing staff. We expect to be able to continue
    to do so. Our realignment formally recognizes our long-term commitment
    to developing and improving the LIS by institutionalizing the LIS
    function within our Office of Information Resources Management.
               distribution of crs written products to the public
        Once again this year legislation has been introduced to make the
    entire inventory of CRS products on the CRS Home Page directly
    available to the general public via the Internet. We certainly
    appreciate this expression of the high regard of the sponsors for CRS
    products and their usefulness of these products in informing the
    public's understanding of legislative issues before the Congress. We
    also appreciate that this year the sponsors have sought to address some
    of the concerns which were identified and which would adversely affect
    our ability to serve Members and committees if this proposal is
    implemented. However, I consider myself obligated to call to the
    Committee's attention certain unintended consequences still presented
    by the current version of these proposals. With the Committee's
    permission I would like to submit for the record analyses which focus
    on the legal issues, costs, and other implications of these bills,
    which are attached to my testimony. In particular, you will note that
    the preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office found that
    last year's proposal could cost CRS as much as $7 million each year;
    the current bills do not alter the assumptions on which that estimate
    is based.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate the budgetary constraints
    confronting this Subcommittee as it crafts the appropriation for the
    Legislative Branch, and it is for that reason that our request is
    limited to the funds essential to sustain our current efforts. Our
    highest priority is to provide the Congress with efficient, cost-
    effective support that meets your highest standards for quality,
    comprehensiveness, accuracy, objectivity, and nonpartisanship.
        I am committed to ensuring that CRS is a key resource to the
    Congress for analytic and information support for its legislative
    activities in the demanding years ahead. Its singular combination of
    expertise, its strong interdisciplinary approach to addressing complex
    legislation, its sensitivity to and understanding of the congressional
    environment, its commitment to nonpartisanship, its access to a wealth
    of data and sources, and its information technology environment
    uniquely position the Service to assist the Congress as it faces the
    challenges of the last days of the twentieth century and well into the
    twenty-first century.
        Thank you for allowing me to come before you and other members of
    this committee today to present our budget request, share some of our
    recent accomplishments, and outline our plans for the upcoming years.
                                     ______

        Congressional Policy Concerning the Distribution of CRS Written
                     Products to the Public--March 9, 1999
        The following discussion reviews congressional policy concerning
    distribution of CRS products to the public and addresses issues for
    consideration by the Congress in determining whether to alter current
    policy regarding public availability of various CRS products, such as
    Reports and Issue Briefs.
        As set forth below, CRS at present is precluded by law from general
    public distribution of its materials without prior approval by a
    congressional oversight committee. The Congress has actively exercised
    its oversight authority regarding CRS publication practices and has
    developed and promulgated standards to be applied in evaluating
    specific proposals. Current guidelines from the Joint Committee on the
    Library and other congressional bodies, issued in 1980, restrict the
    vast majority of CRS written products to congressional use and
    distribution to the public on a selective basis only.
        Many years of congressional consideration of this issue reveal
    serious concerns about the institutional and legal consequences likely
    to result from the wholesale direct public distribution of CRS products
    with a potentially large circulation (e.g., CRS Reports and Issue
    Briefs).
    background on current congressional policy concerning the distribution
                     of crs written products to the public
    Summary
        Congress has historically reserved to itself control over the
    dissemination of CRS products to the public on the principle that CRS,
    as an extension of congressional staff, works exclusively for the
    Congress.
        To maintain congressional control over dissemination, a provision
    has been included in CRS annual appropriations acts since fiscal year
    1952 requiring prior oversight committee approval for any CRS
    publication (as noted above, ``publication'' refers to wholesale
    release of CRS products directly to the public).
        Congress has never authorized the wholesale public dissemination of
    CRS analytical products such as Reports or Issue Briefs (and has seldom
    authorized publication of other products), whether by CRS or the
    Congress, but rather has preferred to rely on congressional release of
    individual products on a case-by-case basis.
        To further indicate the degree of congressional control over CRS
    products, Congress, the courts, and administrative tribunals have
    declared CRS communications to the Congress to be privileged under the
    Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution and to be under the custody
    and control of the Congress. These determinations have assured the
    maintenance of confidentiality in CRS relationships with congressional
    clients, a critical element of CRS effectiveness and an expectation of
    those who seek its assistance.
    Current Restrictions and Guidelines
        At present, CRS is precluded by law from general public
    distribution of its materials without prior approval by one of its two
    congressional oversight committees. This restriction results from a
    limitation that has appeared in CRS' annual appropriations acts in each
    year since fiscal year 1952. This provision reads as follows:
    ``Provided, That no part of this appropriation may be used to pay any
    salary or expense in connection with any publication, or preparation of
    material therefor (except the Digest of Public General Bills), to be
    issued by the Library of Congress unless such publication has obtained
    prior approval of either the Committee on House Oversight or the Senate
    Committee on Rules and Administration.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For the current version of this provision, see Pub. L. 105-55,
    111 Stat. 1190 (1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The most recent policy statement from Congress regarding the
    publication of CRS written products came in 1980. In a communication,
    dated March 21, 1980, the Joint Committee on the Library reaffirmed:
    ``Congressional policy that the circulation of CRS materials prepared
    specifically for congressional use be limited to the Congress, and that
    the long-standing policy of confidentiality in the work of CRS for
    individual congressional clients should be maintained. We believe that,
    as in the past, CRS and its oversight committees should consider the
    publication of only those CRS products whose release to the general
    public would be compatible, both in terms of cost and product content,
    with the CRS's obligations to the Congress.''
        The 1980 guidelines were developed subsequent to a 1978 proposal to
    CRS by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) under which
    CRS would have received access to the files of State research materials
    abstracted by the NCSL, and also would have had the opportunity to
    order copies of desired items for use in answering congressional
    inquiries. In return, CRS would have provided the NCSL with periodic
    listings of CRS Reports (called ``multiliths'' at that time) and with
    only one copy of those CRS Reports which the NCSL requested. Under this
    proposal the NCSL also would have gained access to certain files from
    the Library of Congress's SCORPIO system, including CRS Issue Briefs.
        On September 27, 1978, the Joint Committee on the Library held a
    hearing to consider the CRS-NCSL exchange proposal. At the hearing, the
    Committee concluded that any transmission of CRS material contained in
    SCORPIO to non-congressional users via computer terminal would
    constitute a ``publication'' and thus, under the terms of the language
    contained in CRS's annual appropriations legislation (noted above)
    would require the prior approval of either the Committee on House
    Administration or the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
    Moreover, members of the Joint Committee expressed serious reservations
    about any activity that might divert CRS resources and priorities from
    its statutory responsibilities to Congress. Finally, members of the
    Committee expressed the view that it was appropriate for Members of
    Congress, rather than CRS, to determine whether and to what extent
    various CRS products should be publicly disseminated. As a result, no
    action was taken to implement the proposed CRS-NCSL exchange.
        The March 21, 1980 guidelines were followed later that month (March
    27, 1980) by enactment of a Senate Resolution. (S. Res. 396, 96th
    Congress). The Senate resolved: ``That it is the determination of the
    Senate that the communications of the Congressional Research Service to
    the members and committees of the Congress are under the custody and
    control of the Congress and may be released only by the Congress, its
    Houses, committees and members, in accordance with the rules and
    privileges of each House.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 126 Cong. Rec. 6892 (March 27, 1980). This Senate Resolution
    directed the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate and CRS in
    respect to a Federal Trade Commission administrative law judge's
    ``sweeping subpoena [on behalf of oil companies involved in a FTC
    proceeding] to the Congressional Research Service for documents which
    discuss the oil industry and governmental policy in relation to it.''
    Id. The Resolution stated that ``the communications between the
    Congressional Research Service and the members and committees of the
    Congress are an integral part of the legislative process and privileged
    under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senate Majority Leader Byrd, in introducing the Resolution, noted
    CRS' role in advising members and committees on legislative issues and
    that CRS ``thereby provides a service to the Members and committees of
    Congress which is equivalent to that performed by the staffs of Members
    and committees.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the years, and at the request of CRS, the Joint Committee on
    the Library has authorized a very limited number of CRS publications
    for broader distribution through depository libraries, the sales
    program of the Superintendent of Documents, and to the public through
    individual purchases. In addition, several CRS products are published
    as the result of specific statutory authorization: the Digest of
    General Public Bills and Resolutions (Bill Digest); \4\ and three
    publications for which CRS has been given responsibility by the
    Librarian of Congress: the Constitution of the United States of
    America, Analysis and Interpretation (Constitution Annotated); \5\ and
    the national high school and college debate topic manuals.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 2 U.S.C. 166(d)(6).
        \5\ 2 U.S.C. 168.
        \6\ 44 U.S.C. 1333.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current Accessibility of CRS Written Products
        With few exceptions, congressional offices are the exclusive source
    for distributing CRS Reports and Issue Briefs to the public. Member
    offices use CRS products to develop their own understanding of policy
    issues and options and to inform their constituents regarding these
    issues and options. The principles of representative government and of
    legislative accountability hold that representatives have an obligation
    to provide their constituents with the information and understanding
    required in order to exercise democratic citizenship; that is, the
    democratic idea that the authority of those who govern rests on the
    consent of those who are governed, calls for democratic consent to be
    fully informed and enlightened.
        It is well known, both in Washington, D.C. and by interested
    parties throughout the country, that constituents may obtain copies of
    CRS written products through a Member or Committee of Congress. In
    addition, congressional offices often respond directly to constituent
    requests for information on particular subjects by sending copies of
    CRS Reports and Issue Briefs. For example, during fiscal year 1998,
    over 500,000 printed copies of CRS Reports and Issue Briefs were sent
    to congressional offices. Some percentage of these are sent on to
    constituents--either because constituents asked for them specifically
    or as a means of answering constituent requests for information.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ CRS has not undertaken to survey congressional offices to
    determine this precise percentage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Three changes during the past year have enhanced Members' and
    Committees' ability to make CRS products available to constituents in
    electronic format through congressional home pages. First, CRS has more
    than doubled the number of CRS products available in the popular
    hypertext (HTML) World Wide Web format. Over the past year, several
    hundred CRS reports have now joined issue briefs in being made
    available in HTML format. Second, CRS has made all CRS documents
    available in portable document format (PDF). This special format allows
    Members to easily print high-quality, professional-looking copies of
    any CRS product from their own offices at any time.
        Third, CRS has greatly simplified finding the right CRS product
    online. The Legislative Information System now carries a direct link to
    all CRS products. And, new CRS search pages and changes in the search
    technology applications allow Members and Committees and staff to more
    readily locate the CRS products they need. This upgrade makes it easier
    for Members and Committees to add Issue Briefs and Reports to their own
    home pages for their constituents to the extent such availability is
    deemed appropriate by Members and Committees.
      issues associated with the wholesale release of crs products to the
                                     public
    Institutional Issues
        The direct, wholesale dissemination by Congress of Reports and
    Issue Briefs would have significant effects on the policies, resources,
    and institutional culture that CRS utilizes in serving the Congress.
        First, CRS' mission is to support the Congress exclusively. Given
    its limited resources, CRS can undertake services to non-congressional
    entities (such as the public) only at the expense of direct support of
    the Congress. While the direct and indirect costs associated with
    disseminating Reports and Issue Briefs are difficult to estimate with
    precision, it is clear that significant resources would have to be
    diverted from congressional services. For example, with wider product
    distribution, particularly to users of the Internet/World Wide Web, CRS
    is more likely to get calls, comments, and requests for additions and
    changes that would place a burden on CRS analysts, distracting them
    from their work for Congress. In particular, outside parties may judge
    and question CRS papers on the basis of standards other than the
    standards CRS has developed to meet congressional needs (e.g.,
    timeliness, non-partisanship, balance, objectivity). It is reasonable
    to anticipate that the volume of communications between CRS and the
    public, currently manageable, would rise substantially and affect the
    Service's ability to meet the needs of congressional requester. Any
    mechanisms developed by CRS to shield analysts from these demands would
    of course also involve resource commitments.
        Second, CRS analysts now direct their writings, focused on
    legislative issues, to congressional audiences. The closeness of CRS to
    the legislative process and the sensitivity of the Service's
    traditional culture of exclusively supporting Congress' legislative
    needs shape the nature and content of its written products. If CRS
    written products were routinely available on a wholesale basis to
    academic and other professional peers outside the Congress, CRS
    analysts might become more conscious of the need to address views,
    methods, disciplines, and expectations of non-congressional
    professional peers, with the result that CRS written work could shift
    away, or appear to shift away, from its current emphasis on the
    congressional audience.
        With an awareness that a CRS Report would be disseminated to the
    public, Members may increase the number of confidential requests that
    they place with CRS in order to ensure that they are provided an
    opportunity--should they so desire--to reflect and consider questions
    that emerge from evolving legislative proposals before they have to
    respond to public inquiry about the resulting issues. This increase in
    confidential requests requiring more tailored responses would diminish
    the ability of CRS analysts to prepare reports that are generally
    available to Congress and that serve a broader congressional audience.
    With this increase in tailored analysis would come the necessity of
    duplicating more analysis because of the demand of those Members who
    request that their examination of a legislative proposal remain
    confidential at that point in the legislative process.
        A third, related concern is potentially increased pressure from
    interest groups and lobbying organizations on CRS analysts concerning
    the content of their reports and the impact this pressure may have on
    serving the direct needs of the Congress for analysis and information
    that is non-partisan, objective, and balanced. Enhanced internal
    mechanisms would have to be developed to ensure that communications
    with interested parties did not deflect CRS analysts from producing
    products that are free from advocacy and bias, resulting in a further
    diversion of resources from direct service to Congress.
        Fourth, CRS staff serve by statute as an extension of Member and
    committee staff. The release by Congress of CRS Reports and Issue
    Briefs may set a precedent leading to greater pressure to have studies
    prepared by congressional staff for Members' exclusive use (e.g.,
    committee staff studies distributed to entire committee membership) to
    be disseminated directly to the general public. It might be difficult
    for Congress to articulate a convincing rationale for granting public
    access to the Service's work but denying equivalent access to materials
    prepared by other shared staff (e.g., committee staff) that are
    distributed to more than one Member. Thus, a policy of providing
    Members' constituents with the same materials that Members themselves
    draw upon to make legislative decisions could have serious implications
    for the functions of staff and their relationship with Members.
    Legal Issues
        This section considers three pertinent legal issues associated with
    the wholesale dissemination of CRS products to the public. The first
    two issues involve the speech or debate clause of the Constitution and
    the third deals with intellectual property questions.
        1. Widespread electronic dissemination to the general public of CRS
    Reports and Issue Briefs would be more likely than dissemination
    pursuant to current policy to precipitate litigation in which speech or
    debate clause immunity would not be a defense.
        Since its 1972 ruling in United States v. Brewster, the Supreme
    Court has limited the immunity afforded under the speech or debate
    clause \8\ to ``legislative acts,'' which were distinguished from a
    range of activity described as ``entirely legitimate'' but unprotected
    by the speech or debate clause because it was considered to be
    ``political in nature.'' \9\ In several cases relevant to the
    applicability of speech or debate immunity to the public distribution
    of CRS products, the Court has relied on the dichotomy established in
    Brewster to hold that congressional activities intended to inform the
    general public are outside the scope of the speech or debate clause.
    Notably, in Doe v. McMillan, the Court found that the clause might not
    protect the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents from
    liability for distribution of a committee report, which contained
    material alleged to have invaded individual privacy rights, beyond
    ``the legitimate legislative needs of Congress * * *.'' \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ U.S.Constitution, Art. 1, Sec.  6, clause 1.
        \9\ 408 U.S. 501, 509, 512 (1972).
        \10\ Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 324 (1973). The Court remanded
    for a determination as to whether the extent of distribution by the
    Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents had exceeded ``the
    legitimate legislative needs of Congress, and hence the limits of
    immunity.'' Id. On the remand, the lower courts upheld the claim of
    immunity as to the Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents (374
    F. Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff'd, 566 F.2d 713 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert.
    denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978)), but the court of appeals expressly
    reserved the question of the availability of immunity ``in a case where
    distribution was more extensive * * *.'' 566 F.2d at 718. Apparently
    the only copies distributed outside the federal government in the
    events that precipitated the suit in McMillan were approximately 172 of
    796 copies that had been distributed to various federal agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The dissemination (by Members and/or their aides, by CRS, or by a
    congressionally designated entity) to the general public of CRS
    products would not be viewed as a legislative act but would be
    considered to be an exercise of Congress' representational function,
    for which speech or debate immunity is not available.\11\ Those engaged
    in public distribution of CRS products, as well as CRS analysts who
    prepare the products, may be vulnerable to a variety of administrative
    and judicial proceedings. In such actions, litigants might seek, for
    purposes of discovery, the files of CRS analysts or litigants might ask
    for damages or injunctive relief barring further distribution of a
    particular report or issue brief. Litigants might also claim damages in
    suits alleging copyright infringement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ See, e.g., Doe v. McMillan, supra; Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443
    U.S. 111 (1979).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It would seem that these kinds of actions would be more likely to
    occur as a result of widespread electronic dissemination to the general
    public of CRS products than from the current practice of limited
    distribution (e.g., dissemination by a congressional office of a single
    hard copy of a particular CRS product to a constituent or incorporation
    of a CRS product in a committee report or hearing).
        2. Widespread electronic public dissemination of CRS products would
    jeopardize the confidentiality of CRS files and hamper a claim of
    constitutional immunity by CRS.
        Widespread electronic circulation of CRS products to the general
    public could set CRS on a course accompanied by uncertain legal
    consequences.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ As one legal journal has observed, in addressing the Internet
    and other computer-related issues, the courts are on ``uncharted
    water.'' Thou Shalt Not Trespass--Even in Cyberspace, New Jersey
    Lawyer, Sept. 1, 1997, at p. 10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An inevitable consequence of widespread distribution of CRS
    products to the general public would be an increase in public awareness
    of the research and analysis prepared by the Service for Congress,
    which could escalate the efforts of litigants to obtain, for purposes
    of discovery, CRS analysts' files. These discovery attempts might seek
    not only information and data used to develop CRS Reports and Issue
    Briefs but also related material from the Service's files.
        Speech or debate immunity may provide a valid defense in such
    discovery proceedings if the subject of the proceedings is a protected
    legislative act.\13\ However, it is noted that, even in those cases in
    which CRS succeeded in defending against discovery efforts, the
    litigation would place a burden on CRS and other congressional
    resources \14\ and could put judges in the position of arbitrating
    disputes concerning the confidentiality of communications between CRS
    and Congress.\15\ Claims of speech or debate immunity would be subject
    to review by the courts, potentially including in camera inspection of
    material as to which a claim of privilege is made \16\ and segregation
    of protected from non-protected material.\17\ Arguably, this type of
    judicial sifting of legislative branch materials would impinge upon the
    interest in confidentiality served by the speech or debate clause.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62
    F.3d 408 (D.C.Cir. 1995) .
        \14\ Discovery attempts to obtain CRS file materials have often
    been defended by the offices of House General Counsel or Senate Legal
    Counsel. See, e.g., S. Res. 291, 101st Cong. (resolution directing
    Senate Legal Counsel to represent a CRS attorney in Smith v. IRS, No.
    3778-89 (Tax Ct. 1990)).
        \15\ See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.
    1978); United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D.Pa. 1980).
        \16\ See, e.g., Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 98 F.R.D. 42
    (D.Md. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. In Re Guthrie, 733 F.2d
    634 (4th Cir. 1984).
        \17\ See, e.g., United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 488 n.7
    (1979).
        \18\ The courts are divided on the question of whether the speech
    or debate clause was intended to ensure confidentiality for
    legislators. Compare Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 62 F.3d at 420
    with In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d at 597.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, for two reasons, it is uncertain whether Congress would
    prevail in litigating such matters. First, it is possible that a court
    would not precisely differentiate among the information in the
    superficially similar types of documents in a CRS subject file and
    would grant litigants access not only to publicly available information
    but also to confidential communications between the Service and
    congressional offices. Second, in previous instances in which CRS has
    been involved in litigation or agency proceedings, the judicial or
    agency decision has emphasized that CRS performs a legislative function
    and that its staff functions as an adjunct of Member and committee
    staff.\19\ With wider dissemination of CRS products to the general
    public, this longstanding perception of the Service and the nature of
    its communications to the Congress could be altered, eventually putting
    at risk speech or debate protection for the Service's confidential
    work. In other words, extensive involvement by CRS in the direct public
    information function could lead courts and administrative agencies to
    reconsider their perception of CRS as playing a significant and unique
    support role in the legislative process, and thus some day might hamper
    a claim of immunity even in an instance in which CRS was fulfilling its
    legislative function.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ See Webster v. Sun Oil, 731 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir. 1984) and 790
    F.2d 157 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (communications to CRS analyst are within
    scope of common law privilege for communications to a legislative
    body); In re Exxon Corporation, 95 F.T.C. 919 (1980) (FTC subpoena for
    CRS documents barred by speech or debate immunity and separation of
    powers doctrine; CRS performs an ``essentially legislative function'').
        \20\ See, Doe v. McMillan, note 9, supra.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3. There is some risk of assertion of copyright infringement if CRS
    materials are made available online to members of the general public.
        United States copyright protection is not available for U.S.
    Government works.\21\ Those portions of a public document authored by
    the U.S. Government are in the ``public domain''--freely and widely
    available to the public without restrictions placed on their
    dissemination. However, the government's inclusion of copyrighted
    material in a government publication does not thrust that material into
    the public domain or impair the rights of the copyright owner.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ 17 U.S.C. Sec.  105.
        \22\ The legislative history of the Copyright Act contains the
    following statement: ``The committee here observes: (1) there is
    nothing in section 105 that would relieve the Government of its
    obligation to secure permission in order to publish a copyrighted work;
    and (2) publication or other use by the Government of a private work
    would not affect its copyright protection in any way.'' H.R. Rep. No.
    1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1976).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CRS may incorporate preexisting material in its written responses
    to congressional requests. Although such material is often from public
    domain sources, in certain instances the material, appropriately
    credited, may be from copyrighted sources. To the extent that the
    material is copyrighted, CRS either: obtains permission for the use;
    \23\ considers its information-gathering function protected by the
    speech or debate clause; or believes that the use falls under the
    ``fair use'' doctrine of the Copyright Act \24\ as applied in the
    context of the legislative process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Although CRS obtains permission to reproduce certain
    copyrighted works, the permissions are generally based on legislative
    use and the expectation that dissemination is limited to Members of
    Congress.
        \24\ Copyright Act of 1976, Act October 19, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-
    553 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  101 et seq.). See 17
    U.S.C. Sec.  107.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The exclusive rights \25\ of the copyright owner are qualified or
    limited by enumerated exceptions.\26\ Unless excused by a statutory
    exception, the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is considered an
    infringement. Fair use is one of the limitations on the copyright
    owner's exclusive rights and may be invoked as an affirmative defense
    to a claim of copyright infringement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  106, 106A.
        \26\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  107-120.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The copyright statute does not expressly include congressional use
    of copyrighted works as a fair use. However, both the House and Senate
    Reports on the Copyright Act of 1976 include the ``reproduction of a
    work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports'' among examples
    of fair use.\27\ The legislative history also contains an observation
    that publication of copyrighted material in Congressional documents
    would constitute fair use ``[w]here the length of the work or excerpt
    published and the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the
    circumstances, and the work itself is directly relevant to a matter of
    legitimate legislative concern * * *.'' \28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 65 (1976); S.
    Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 61-62 (1975) quoting REPORT OF THE
    REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT
    LAW, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (Comm. Print 1961) (hereafter REGISTER'S
    REPORT).
        \28\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, Id. at 73.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thus, in an infringement action, a court might regard the
    publication of copyrighted material in a Congressional document for
    legitimate legislative purposes as a ``fair use.'' If, however, the use
    is outside of such legislative purposes, it is possible that a
    traditional fair use analysis might result in liability for copyright
    infringement. Wider dissemination outside the confines of Congress
    would further complicate the ``fair use'' question.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Moreover, if CRS products were generally available to the
    public, the construction of these products may be affected, with the
    potential consequent loss when material, such as copyrighted maps or
    graphs, may be withheld in the writing of the paper with the
    foreknowledge that the paper could be widely disseminated and thereby
    subject to different ``fair use'' guidelines than those applicable to
    work for legislative use only. Therefore, public availability may
    perforce shape selected CRS products so that their contents no longer
    bring to bear the best information and analysis to assist Members in
    their decisionmaking.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The copyright laws do not contain an exemption from copyright
    infringement for unauthorized use of copyrighted materials by the U.S.
    Government. Subsection 1498(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides
    that the exclusive remedy of a copyright owner for copyright
    infringement by the United States is an action against the United
    States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ``for the recovery of * * *
    reasonable and entire compensation * * * including the minimum
    statutory damages * * *.'' Speech or debate clause immunity is not
    waived under Sec.  1498(b); however, activities outside of the
    legislative sphere would not be shielded from a copyright infringement
    action.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ As originally enacted, Sec.  1498 applied only to suits for
    patent infringement against the United States. In 1960, Congress
    amended Sec.  1498 to give its consent to suits for copyright
    infringement against the United States; Section 2 of Pub. L. 86-726
    provided: ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to in any way waive
    any immunity provided for Members of Congress under article I of
    section 6 of the Constitution of the United States.''
        Section 2 was added to the House bill by Senate amendment in order
    ``to emphasize the fact that no immunities for Members of Congress
    under article I of section 6 of the Constitution shall be waived by the
    enactment of this legislation.'' See S. Rep. No. 1877, 86th Cong., 2d
    Sess. (1960) as reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. 3444. Presumably, speech
    or debate clause protection would protect Congressional use of
    copyrighted material that is used to further legitimate legislative
    activities that are part of the legislative processes (e.g.,
    copyrighted material inserted into the Congressional Record or
    congressional document). See Copyright Office Memorandum of May 26,
    1958 reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. at 3456. Congress did not waive its
    speech or debate clause immunity when it amended Sec.  1498. However,
    insofar as activities outside of the legislative sphere (e.g.,
    political activities or public information activities) are concerned,
    it would appear that Sec.  1498(b) would not shield Congress from a
    copyright infringement action.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary, where permission has been granted to CRS to use
    copyrighted material, it has likely been based on legislative purpose
    and limited to selective distribution of hardcopy by Members of
    Congress. If access is broadened to wholesale release to members of the
    general public, such release may be outside the scope of ``legitimate
    legislative purpose.'' If a CRS product, containing substantial
    copyrighted material (albeit with appropriate credit) is made available
    to the general public without permission and outside the confines of
    traditional fair use, liability is possible. In this regard,
    distinctions can be made between the selective distribution of hardcopy
    CRS products by Members and Committees and wholesale, potentially
    world-wide distribution of CRS products on the Internet. Violation of
    any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner may give rise to an
    action for copyright infringement. Although the extent of copyright
    owners' rights in the online environment is still evolving, wholesale
    distribution of CRS products via the Internet--unlike the current
    practice--would likely implicate copyright owners' performance and
    public display rights, \31\ as a matter of direct infringement, and may
    implicate rights of reproduction and public distribution \32\ either as
    a matter of direct, vicarious or contributory infringement. On the
    other hand, under a ``fair use'' analysis, there is likely less effect
    upon the potential market of the copyright owner in the case of
    selective hardcopy distribution than in the case of wholesale
    distribution on the Internet. Selective distribution of hardcopy CRS
    products by Members may not constitute ``publication'' in the copyright
    sense.\33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106(4),(5).
        \32\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(1), (3).
        \33\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101,106(3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        To review, Congress has historically regarded CRS as an extension
    of its own Member and committee staff. CRS' relationship with Congress
    is confidential and exclusive; in order to preserve this relationship,
    Congress has determined as a matter of policy that CRS products are to
    be distributed to non-congressional users through congressional offices
    on a selective basis. Proposals to disseminate CRS products directly to
    the public would fundamentally change this longstanding congressional
    policy, with potentially significant institutional and legal
    consequences for CRS and current congressional operations and
    practices.
                                     ______

      Legal Issues Presented by Proposals for the General Release of CRS
                   Products to the Public--February 24, 1998
        This paper considers significant legal issues implicated by
    proposals involving the general release of Congressional Research
    Service (CRS) products such as Reports and Issue Briefs. (Issues of
    policy and technology posed by the general release of CRS products are
    beyond the scope of this analysis.) Specifically, attention is given to
    three pertinent legal issues, the first two involving the Speech or
    Debate Clause and the third dealing with intellectual property
    questions. This study assumes that CRS products would be published by
    CRS itself and identifies adverse legal consequences that would result
    from such publication. Publication of CRS products by the Congress
    would have corresponding legal consequences but these would be
    exacerbated in the case of direct public dissemination by CRS
    itself.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ This study addresses, inter alia, issues relating to the speech
    or debate clause that were raised in the statement of Senator McCain
    upon introduction of S. 1578, 105th Cong. (providing that the Director
    of CRS is to make specified CRS products, including Reports and Issue
    Briefs, available on the Internet) and in a letter inserted by Senator
    McCain in the Congressional Record from Stanley Brand, former General
    Counsel to the House of Representatives (hereafter, Brand letter). 144
    Cong. Rec. S123-25 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1. Dissemination of CRS products on the Internet \2\ would not be
    cloaked with constitutional immunity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Internet has been described by the Supreme Court as ``a
    unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication.'' Reno
    v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 2334 (1997).
    Commentators have observed that ``novel and unsettled'' legal questions
    are raised by cyberspace (Decisions Reflect Nature of Media, National
    Law Journal, Aug. 11, 1997, at p. B8) and that in addressing the
    ``Internet and computer-related issues'' the courts are on ``uncharted
    water.'' Though Shalt Not Trespass--Even in Cyberspace, New Jersey
    Lawyer, Sept. 1, 1997, at p. 10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Members of Congress are protected by art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 1, of the
    Constitution, which provides in part that ``for any speech or debate in
    either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in
    any other place.'' The clause performs two related functions. First, it
    protects the ``independence and integrity of the legislature,'' and
    second, it ``reinforce[s] the separation of powers * * *.'' \3\ The
    clause ``applies not only to a Member but also to his aides insofar as
    the conduct of the latter would be a protected legislative act if
    performed by the Member himself.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 178 (1966)(footnote
    omitted). See also United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 507 (1972).
        \4\ Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 618 (1972).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In early decisions, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause
    broadly and considered it as protecting activity beyond the walls of
    the chamber.\5\ However, in recent years the Court has constricted the
    range of actions shielded by the constitutional provision.\6\ Beginning
    with its decision in 1972 in United States v. Brewster, the Court has
    limited the protection of the clause to ``legislative acts.'' \7\ In
    that case, the Court explained that ``a legislative act has
    consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in
    relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause
    prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the
    House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the
    motivation for those acts.'' \8\ In another frequently quoted
    description of the scope of the privilege, the Court declared that, in
    addition to actual speech or debate in either House, the clause applies
    only to acts which are ``an integral part of the deliberative and
    communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and
    House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or
    rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters
    which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either
    House.'' \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 180 (1966);
    Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 203-04 (1880).
        \6\ For a detailed historical review of the restricted reading
    placed upon the clause by the courts, see Walker, Constitutional Law:
    Narrowing the Scope of Speech or Debate Clause Immunity, 68 Temple L.
    Rev. 377 (1995).
        \7\ 408 U.S. 501, 509 (1972).
        \8\ Id. at 512.
        \9\ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In Brewster, the Court distinguished protected legislative acts
    from a range of activity described as ``entirely legitimate'' but
    unprotected by speech or debate immunity because it was considered to
    be ``political in nature.'' \10\ In several cases of relevance to the
    applicability of speech or debate immunity to the general public
    distribution of CRS products, the Court has relied on the dichotomy
    established in Brewster to hold that congressional activities intended
    to inform the general public are outside the scope of the speech or
    debate clause.\11\ Thus, the Court has held that the clause did not
    protect a Member from liability for allegedly defamatory remarks in
    newsletters and press releases based almost entirely on the Member's
    statement to the Senate, which had appeared in the Congressional
    Record.\12\ The Court has further held that the clause did not preclude
    a grand jury from questioning a Member's aide in regard to possible
    criminal liability for arranging for the private publication of the
    Pentagon Papers, which previously had been inserted by the Member in a
    subcommittee hearing record.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ 408 U.S. at 512.
        \11\ In dicta in Brewster, the Court indicated that newsletters to
    constituents, news releases, and speeches delivered outside of Congress
    would not be protected by speech or debate immunity. Id.
        \12\ Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979). See also Chastain
    v. Sundquist, 833 F.2d 311 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (Member's press release and
    communications to executive branch not protected by speech or debate
    immunity or common law official immunity), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240
    (1988). In a recent ruling in a defamation suit based on a Member's
    statement in a television interview concerning the status of an
    appropriations bill, speech or debate immunity was not available but
    the Member successfully invoked a statutory mechanism (28 U.S.C.
    Sec. 2679 (Westfall Act)) providing for substitution of the United
    States as the defendant. Williams v. United States, 71 F.3d 502 (5th
    Cir. 1995).
        \13\ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 609-10, 622.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Perhaps most importantly, in Doe v. McMillan, a suit filed against,
    inter alia, various Members, their staffs and consultants, the Public
    Printer, and the Superintendent of Documents, seeking declaratory and
    injunctive relief and damages based on the publication of an official
    committee report that included material alleged to invade plaintiffs'
    privacy, in an opinion written by Justice White, the Court held that
    individuals ``such as the Superintendent of Documents or the Public
    Printer or legislative personnel, who participate in distribution of
    [legally] actionable material beyond the reasonable bounds of the
    legislative task, enjoy no speech or debate clause immunity.'' \14\
    Justice Douglas, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Brennan and
    Marshall, would have extended speech or debate immunity to ``a
    legislator's function in informing the public'' because that task ``is
    essential to maintaining our representative democracy.'' \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ 412 U.S. 306, 315, 324 (1973). However, the Court held that
    the actions of the Members, their staffs, and consultants in preparing
    the report and ordering that it be printed were protected by speech or
    debate immunity. Id. at 313.
        \15\ Id. at 328. Justice Blackmun, in an opinion concurring in part
    and dissenting in part that was joined by Chief Justice Burger,
    considered the informing function to be ``an essential attribute of an
    effective Legislative Branch,'' and believed that the opinion of the
    Court effectively curtailed that function and thereby violated ``the
    historical tradition signified textually by the speech or debate clause
    and underlying our doctrine of separation of powers.'' Id. at 334. The
    suggestion in Justice Douglas's concurrence that speech or debate
    immunity should protect the informing function has not been adopted by
    the Court in subsequent cases. In fact, in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443
    U.S. at 130, the majority opinion approved the views expressed in
    Justice White's opinion for the Court in McMillan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court in McMillan remanded for a determination as to whether
    the extent of distribution by the Public Printer and the Superintendent
    of Documents had exceeded ``the legitimate legislative needs of
    Congress, and hence the limits of immunity.'' \16\ On the remand, after
    a detailed factual inquiry which revealed that there had been quite
    limited public distribution of the report, the lower courts upheld the
    claim of immunity as to the Public Printer and Superintendent of
    Documents.\17\ The court of appeals on the remand expressly reserved
    the question of the availability of immunity ``in a case where
    distribution was more extensive, was specially promoted, was made in
    response to specific requests rather than standing orders, or continued
    for a period after notice of objections was received.'' \18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ 412 U.S. at 324-25.
        \17\ 374 F. Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff'd, 566 F.2d 713 (D.C.Cir.
    1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978). Based on affidavits submitted
    by the Public Printer, other material in the record, and a memorandum
    of the Public Printer filed upon appeal of the district court's ruling,
    ``it was determined that in addition to 2,557 copies of the report
    distributed within the Congress and its staff, 796 copies were
    distributed to various federal government agencies based on statutory
    requirements and standing orders. Another 796 copies were retained in a
    security cage [and were not distributed because of the litigation]. * *
    * About 54 `extra' copies were retained by the Printer for internal use
    and for distribution in case of spoilage.'' 566 F.2d at 715. Apparently
    the only copies distributed outside the federal government were
    approximately 172 of the 796 copies that had been distributed to
    various federal agencies. Specifically, ``about 92 copies were
    distributed to members of the public who maintained standing orders for
    all committee reports'' and ``about 80 copies were automatically
    delivered to foreign legations with standing orders for all committee
    reports under 44 U.S.C. Sec. 1717 * * *.'' Id. at 716.
        \18\ Id. at 718.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under the caselaw reviewed above, the dissemination to the general
    public of CRS products--by CRS \19\ or by Members and/or their aides
    \20\--would not be considered a legislative act \21\ but would be
    viewed by the courts as an exercise of Congress' representational
    function, for which speech or debate immunity is not available.\22\
    Those engaged in public distribution of CRS products, as well as CRS
    analysts who prepare the products, may be vulnerable to a variety of
    judicial and administrative proceedings. In such actions, litigants
    might seek, for purposes of discovery, the files of CRS analysts or
    litigants might ask for damages \23\ or injunctive relief barring
    further distribution of a particular report or issue brief.\24\
    Litigants might also claim damages in suits alleging copyright
    infringement. It would seem that these kinds of actions would be more
    likely to occur as a result of widespread electronic dissemination to
    the general public of CRS products than from limited distribution
    (common under current practice) by a congressional office of a single
    hard copy of a particular CRS Report or Issue Brief to a constituent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ See Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. at 318 (immunity of
    Superintendent of Public Documents and of Public Printer was
    coextensive with that of Members of Congress whom they served).
        \20\ Under the Court's holding in Gravel, 408 U.S. at 618, speech
    or debate immunity applies to a Member's aide ``insofar as the conduct
    of the * * * [aide] would be a protected legislative act if performed
    by the Member himself.''
        \21\ In determining whether the extent of distribution exceeds the
    legislative needs of Congress, and thus is outside the bounds of speech
    or debate immunity, the courts may consider various factors relating to
    the distribution, including the number of copies circulated and the
    purposes for which they were circulated. See Doe v. McMillan, 374 F.
    Supp. 1313 (D.D.C. 1974), aff'd, 566 F. 2d 713 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert.
    denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978).
        \22\ In his remarks upon the introduction of S. 1578, Senator
    McCain observed that, by providing for the dissemination of CRS
    research products via the Internet, Members would be fulfilling their
    role of informing the public. Senator McCain recognized that an issue
    exists as to the applicability of speech or debate immunity to
    exercises of the informing function. 144 Cong. Rec., supra note 1, at
    S123.
        \23\ See Doe v. McMillan, supra (invasion of privacy).
        \24\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It has been suggested that speech or debate clause concerns raised
    by legislation providing for the dissemination of certain CRS products
    via the Internet might be addressed by including in such legislation
    language stating that ``nothing herein shall be deemed or considered to
    diminish, qualify, condition, waive, or otherwise affect applicability
    of the Constitution's speech or debate clause, or any other privilege
    available to Congress, its agencies or their employees, to any CRS
    product made available on the Internet under this bill.'' \25\ The
    effect of the suggested language is uncertain. (1) Would the courts
    characterize the language as ``self-serving'' and disregard it? (2)
    Even if not disregarded, would the effect of the language be to deny
    immunity to the dissemination of CRS products on the Internet? The
    suggested language would not immunize CRS products but would simply
    seek to have the courts treat ``any CRS product made available on the
    Internet'' in the same way that they would treat any other information
    disseminated by Congress or its agents to the general public--i.e., as
    unprotected.\26\ (3) Because the proposed language applies only to CRS
    products made available on the Internet, would it have any impact on
    concerns with regard to the effect of dissemination of Service products
    to the general public on attempts to gain access to CRS files? \27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ The Brand letter proposes that the quoted language be included
    in S. 1578, 105th Cong. See note 1, supra.
        \26\ See notes 11-18 and accompanying text, supra.
        \27\ See pp. 5-8, infra.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2. Public dissemination of CRS products might jeopardize the
    confidentiality of CRS files and hamper a claim of constitutional
    immunity by CRS.
        Extensive distribution of CRS products to the general population
    would increase public awareness of the research and analysis prepared
    by the Service for Congress and could thereby intensify efforts by
    litigants to obtain, for purposes of discovery, the files of CRS
    analysts who prepare the products. These discovery attempts might seek
    not only information and data used to develop CRS Reports and Issue
    Briefs but also related material from the files.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ See In the Matter of Exxon Corporation, et al., FTC Docket No.
    8934, Application of November 6, 1978, at p. 18 (at request of
    respondents in agency proceeding, FTC administrative law judge issued
    subpoena seeking discovery of, inter alia, CRS ``reports on the oil
    industry in connection with House and Senate subcommittee studies of
    the oil industry and in connection with congressional preparation of
    bills relating to energy matters''), subsequent ruling, In re Exxon
    Corporation, 95 F.T.C. 919 (1980); Chapman v. Space Qualified Systems
    Corp., 647 F. Supp. 551, 552 (N.D.Fla. 1986) (seeking discovery from
    GAO investigator of various materials, including ``all working
    documents'' related to a GAO investigation conducted at the request of
    a congressional committee, executive branch inspector general reports
    provided to GAO, and communications to GAO from Congress or
    congressional staff). See also Smith v. IRS, No. 3778-89 (Tax Ct. 1990)
    (litigants obtained subpoena calling for the testimony of an attorney
    in the American Law Division of CRS and for the production of
    background materials used by the attorney in preparing a memorandum for
    a Member of the Senate). It might be noted that, with some frequency,
    litigants are seeking in discovery not only documents and depositions
    from congressional support agencies but also from Members of Congress
    and congressional staff. See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v.
    Williams, 62 F.3d 408 (D.C.Cir. 1995); In the Matter of the
    Applications of the City of El Paso, Texas, 887 F.2d 1103 (D.C. Cir.
    1989); Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Services, Inc., 844 F.2d 856
    (D.C.Cir. 1988); Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524 (9th
    Cir. 1983); United Transportation Union v. Springfield Terminal Ry.,
    132 F.R.D. 4, 6 (D.Me. 1990) (litigant who had previously engaged in
    ``sweeping discovery,'' including depositions from, and document
    production by, House and Senate aides, also sought internal
    congressional communications); Common Cause v. Bolger, 574 F. Supp.
    672, 673-74 (D.D.C. 1982) (three-judge court), aff'd mem., 461 U.S. 911
    (1983).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The speech or debate clause may provide a valid defense in such
    discovery proceedings if the subject of the proceedings is a protected
    legislative act.\29\ However, even in instances in which CRS succeeded
    in defending against such discovery efforts, such litigation would
    place a significant burden on congressional resources \30\ and could
    make judges the arbiters of disputes concerning the confidentiality of
    communications between CRS and Congress.\31\ Claims of speech or debate
    immunity would be subject to judicial review \32\ which might include
    in camera inspection of material as to which a claim of privilege is
    made \33\ and segregation of protected from non-protected material.\34\
    Such judicial screening of legislative branch materials arguably
    impinges upon the interest in confidentiality served by the speech or
    debate clause.\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., supra (exercise
    of Congress' investigative power). The speech or debate clause has been
    held to be a valid defense in an attempt to obtain access to CRS
    materials prepared to aid Congress in considering legislation. See In
    Re Exxon Corporation, supra. The role of the speech or debate clause as
    a defense in such litigation is discussed in the Brand letter, supra
    note 1.
        \30\ In actions in which litigants have sought access to its files,
    CRS has generally been represented by the Office of Senate Legal
    Counsel or the House General Counsel. For example, in Smith v. IRS,
    supra, the CRS employee involved was represented by the Senate Legal
    Counsel pursuant to S. Res. 291, 101st Cong.
        \31\ See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.
    1978); United States v. Eilberg, 507 F. Supp. 267 (E.D.Pa. 1980).
        \32\ In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-05 (1974), the
    Court rejected the President's contention that the separation of powers
    doctrine barred judicial review of a claim of executive privilege, and
    in support of judicial authority in such a case the Court cited several
    speech or debate clause cases in which it had interpreted the immunity
    of Members. Id. at 704, citing Doe v. McMillan; Gravel; Brewster; and
    Johnson.
        \33\ ``Courts have conducted in camera hearings, with participation
    by adverse parties, to determine whether materials subpoenaed from
    Members of Congress were within the speech or debate privilege.''
    Raveson, Unmasking the Motives of Government Decisionmakers, 63
    N.C.L.Rev. 879, 968 n.523 (1985) (citing In Re Grand Jury
    Investigation, 587 F.2d 589, 596-97 (3d Cir. 1978); In Re Possible
    Violations of 18 U.S.C. 201, 371, 491 F. Supp. 211, 213-14 (D.D.C.
    1980)). The Brand letter, supra note 1, states that in camera review is
    not routinely used by the courts to settle disputes concerning the
    applicability of speech or debate immunity. If in camera review is
    employed relatively infrequently, congressional concern over the
    judiciary's use of this technique may be alleviated but not eliminated.
        The case of Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 98 F.R.D. 42
    (D.Md. 1983), was cited in a previous CRS discussion of the possibility
    of in camera inspection of material when a claim of privilege is
    raised. The Brand letter comments that in camera inspection of House
    documents was not ordered by the court in that case. It is correct that
    the court did not order such an inspection. However, in denying a
    congressional committee's motion to intervene to obtain a protective
    order from a litigant's subpoena seeking in discovery material as to
    which speech or debate immunity was claimed, the district court stated
    that it ``should examine the relevant documents * * * in camera * *
    *.'' Id. at 45 n.2. (The opinion in Benford is convoluted because of
    the procedural complexity of the lengthy litigation involved. However,
    the court's position with regard to in camera review is clarified by a
    subsequent ruling in the same litigation, in an opinion by the same
    judge. Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 565 F. Supp. 139, 141
    (D.Md. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. In Re Guthrie, 733 F.2d
    634 (4th Cir. 1984). In that subsequent ruling, the court expressly
    reserved ``the right to examine in camera'' documents as to which a
    claim of speech or debate privilege was raised. Id. at 143.)
        \34\ The Court in Nixon upheld the authority of the district court
    to segregate privileged material (to be returned to the President) from
    material that would be admissible in the judicial proceedings for which
    they had been subpoenaed. 418 U.S. at 714-16. Segregation of protected
    from non-protected material has also been upheld in the speech or
    debate context. See, e.g., United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477,
    488 n.7 (1979).
        \35\ See generally Evidentiary Implications of the Speech or Debate
    Clause, 88 Yale L.J. 1280, 1286-87 n.30 (1979). The courts are divided
    on the question of whether the speech or debate clause was intended to
    ensure confidentiality for legislators. Compare Brown & Williamson
    Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d at 420 with In re Grand Jury
    Investigation, 587 F.2d at 597.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Moreover, there is no assurance that CRS would prevail in
    litigating such matters. Two concerns might be highlighted. The first
    stems from the mix in CRS files which commonly include, inter alia,
    material from research sources in the public domain, confidential CRS
    memoranda for Congress, and communications between Congress and the
    Service. Because the information contained in the different types of
    documents in a particular CRS subject file is superficially similar,
    and because the Service's work for Congress is cumulative in nature
    (i.e., a CRS Report often builds upon the general analysis developed in
    response to specific requests from Members and congressional
    staff),\36\ there may be a risk that a court would not precisely
    differentiate among the types of documents and would grant litigants
    access not only to publicly available information but also to
    confidential communications between the Service and congressional
    offices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ For example, an analyst may prepare a CRS Report on the
    economic implications of a tax cut on the basis of, inter alia,
    academic studies on the subject and some of the general factual
    information and analysis that had been included in a confidential
    memorandum previously prepared for a Member of the Ways and Means
    Committee who requested an assessment of a draft bill. Of course,
    because of the confidential relationship of CRS with its congressional
    clients, none of the specific analysis of the draft bill included in
    that memorandum would appear in, or be reflected, in the CRS Report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The second concern arises from the fact that, in previous instances
    in which CRS has been involved in litigation or agency proceedings, the
    judicial or agency decision has emphasized that CRS performs a
    legislative function and that its staff functions as an adjunct of
    Member and committee staff.\37\ With wider dissemination of CRS
    products to the general public, this longstanding perception of the
    Service and the nature of its communications to the Congress could be
    altered, eventually putting at risk speech or debate protection for the
    Service's confidential work. In other words, extensive involvement by
    CRS in the direct public information function could lead courts and
    administrative agencies to reconsider their perception of CRS as
    playing a significant and unique support role in the legislative
    process, and thus some day might hamper a claim of immunity even in an
    instance in which CRS was fulfilling its legislative function.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ See Webster v. Sun Oil, 731 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir. 1984) and 790
    F.2d 157 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (communications to CRS analyst are within
    scope of common law privilege for communications to a legislative
    body); Smith v. IRS, No. 3778-89 (Tax Ct. 1990) (protecting from
    compulsory process background materials used by CRS staff in preparing
    reports and memoranda for Members); In re Exxon Corporation, 95 F.T.C.
    919 (1980) (FTC subpoena for CRS documents barred by speech or debate
    immunity and separation of powers doctrine; CRS performs an
    ``essentially legislative function''). Cf. Browning v. Clerk, U.S.
    House of Representatives, 789 F.2d 923, 929 (D.C.Cir.) (personnel
    actions held to be protected by speech or debate immunity if the
    ``employee's duties were directly related to the due functioning of the
    legislative process'') (emphasis in the original), cert. denied, 479
    U.S. 996 (1986).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3. There is some risk of assertion of copyright infringement if CRS
    materials are made available on-line to members of the general public.
        CRS may incorporate preexisting material in its written responses
    to congressional requests. Although such material is often from public
    domain sources,\38\ in certain instances the material may be from
    copyrighted sources.\39\ To the extent that the material is
    copyrighted, CRS either: obtains permission for the use; \40\ considers
    its information-gathering function protected by the speech or debate
    clause; \41\ or believes that the intended use falls under the ``fair
    use'' doctrine of the Copyright Act.\42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ For example, prior CRS Reports; other government publications.
        \39\ CRS's uses of copyrighted material are appropriately credited.
        \40\ Although CRS obtains permission to reproduce certain
    copyrighted works, the permissions are generally based on legislative
    use and do not explicitly cover electronic dissemination.
        \41\ U.S. Const., art. 1, Sec. 6, cl. 1. Speech or debate clause
    protection extends to activities within the sphere of legitimate
    legislative activity (generally considered to be matters that are an
    integral part of the deliberative process by which members participate
    in legislative proceedings) rather than activities that are
    representational or political in nature. When CRS performs a
    legislative function, the speech or debate clause shield provides
    protection from copyright infringement claims. See CRS's purposes and
    duties as set forth in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 166(d); see also Webster v. Sun
    Oil, supra n.27.
        \42\ Copyright Act of 1976, Act October 19, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-
    553 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101 et seq.). Fair use
    is a judicial doctrine codified for the first time in the Copyright
    Act. See 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107. Although the Act does not define ``fair
    use,'' the Act lists four illustrative factors, based on prior case
    law, to be considered when determining whether a use made of a work is
    a fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
    such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
    purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and
    substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work
    as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for
    or value of the copyrighted work.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        United States copyright protection is not available for U.S.
    Government works.\43\ Those portions of a public document authored by
    the U.S. Government are in the ``public domain''--freely and widely
    available to the public without restrictions placed on their
    dissemination. However, the government's inclusion of copyrighted
    material in a government publication does not thrust that material into
    the public domain or impair the rights of the copyright owner.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. 105. Sec. 101 defines a ``work of the United
    States Government'' as ``a work prepared by an officer or employee of
    the United States Government as part of that person's official
    duties.'' While works of the U.S. Government are not protected under
    U.S. copyright laws, protection may be available under the statutes of
    certain other countries.
        \44\ The legislative history of the Copyright Act contains the
    following statement:
        The committee here observes: (1) there is nothing in section 105
    that would relieve the Government of its obligation to secure
    permission in order to publish a copyrighted work; and (2) publication
    or other use by the Government of a private work would not affect its
    copyright protection in any way. (H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d
    Sess. 60 (1976).)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The exclusive rights \45\ of the copyright owner are qualified or
    limited by enumerated exceptions.\46\ Unless excused by a statutory
    exception, the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is considered an
    infringement. Fair use is one of the limitations on the copyright
    owner's exclusive rights and may be invoked as an affirmative defense
    to a claim of copyright infringement.\47\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106, 106A.
        \46\ 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 107-120.
        \47\ A bright-line approach to fair use is difficult if not
    impossible; courts examine the fair use defense on a case-by-case
    basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The copyright statute does not expressly include congressional use
    of copyrighted works as a fair use. However, both the House and Senate
    Reports on the Copyright Act of 1976 include the ``reproduction of a
    work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports'' among examples
    of fair use.\48\ The legislative history also contains an observation
    that publication of copyrighted material in Congressional documents
    would constitute fair use ``[w]here the length of the work or excerpt
    published and the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the
    circumstances, and the work itself is directly relevant to a matter of
    legitimate legislative concern * * *.'' \49\]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 65 (1976); S.
    Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 61-62 (1975) quoting REPORT OF THE
    REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT
    LAW, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (Comm. Print 1961) (hereafter REGISTER'S
    REPORT).
        \49\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, Id. at 73. A ``matter of legitimate
    legislative concern'' is not defined. In a speech or debate clause
    context, protection extends to activities within the sphere of
    legitimate legislative activity which is generally considered to be
    matters that are an integral part of the deliberative and communicative
    processes by which members participate in legislative proceedings. Such
    matters are distinguished from those activities that are political in
    nature and further interests distinct from legislative responsibility.
    See Gravel v. United States, supra n.2; United States v. Brewster,
    supra n.1. The republication of intra-Congressional material outside
    Congress has been held not to be a protected legislative activity. See
    Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., supra n.21; Hutchinson v.
    Proxmire, supra n.10 at 127-28 (1979). Although obtaining information
    pertinent to potential legislation is one of the ``things generally
    done in a session of the House'' concerning matters within the
    ``legitimate legislative sphere'' (see Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S.
    168, 204 (1881)), Congress's ``informing function'' protected by the
    speech or debate clause as part of the legislative function is that of
    informing itself about subjects susceptible to legislation, not that of
    informing the public. See Hutchinson v. Proxmire, at 132-33.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In an infringement action, a court might regard the publication of
    copyrighted material in a Congressional document for legitimate
    legislative purposes as a ``fair use.'' If, however, the use is outside
    of such legislative purposes, it is possible that a traditional fair
    use analysis might result in liability for copyright infringement.
    Wider dissemination outside the confine of Congress would further
    complicate the ``fair use'' question. While courts appear to be
    applying the same fair use analysis in infringement actions involving
    the electronic environment as in more traditional environments, the
    application of fair use in the electronic environment is still
    developing.
        The copyright laws do not contain an exemption from copyright
    infringement for unauthorized use of copyrighted materials by the U.S.
    Government. Subsection 1498(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides
    that the exclusive remedy of a copyright owner for copyright
    infringement by the United States is an action against the United
    States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ``for the recovery of * * *
    reasonable and entire compensation * * * including the minimum
    statutory damages * * *.'' \50\ Speech or debate clause immunity is not
    waived under Sec. 1498(b); however, activities outside of the
    legislative sphere would not be shielded from a copyright infringement
    action.\51\ The one case interpreting Sec. 1498(b) narrowly construed
    the governmental waiver--relying on general construction of such
    waivers and on prior interpretation of a similar provision.\52\]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ Damages are limited to ``reasonable and entire compensation.''
    The available remedies do not include the other remedies for
    infringement available under the Copyright Act against infringing
    parties such as: injunctions; impoundment and disposition of the
    infringing articles; recovery of full costs and attorney's fees.
        The subsection provides that before such an infringement action is
    instituted, ``the head of the appropriate department or agency of the
    Government, as the case may be, is authorized to enter into an
    agreement with the copyright owner in full settlement and compromise
    for the damages accruing to him by reason of such infringement and to
    settle the claim administratively out of available appropriations.''
        \51\ As originally enacted, Sec. 1498 applied only to suits for
    patent infringement against the United States. In 1960, Congress
    amended Sec. 1498 to give its consent to suits for copyright
    infringement against the United States; Section 2 of Pub. L. 86-726
    provided: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to in any way waive
    any immunity provided for Members of Congress under article I of
    section 6 of the Constitution of the United States.
        Section 2 was added to the House bill by Senate amendment in order
    ``to emphasize the fact that no immunities for Members of Congress
    under article I of section 6 of the Constitution shall be waived by the
    enactment of this legislation.'' See S. Rep. No. 1877, 86th Cong., 2d
    Sess. (1960) as reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. 3444. Presumably, speech
    or debate clause protection would protect Congressional use of
    copyrighted material that is used to further legitimate legislative
    activities that are part of the legislative processes (e.g.,
    copyrighted material inserted into the Congressional Record or
    congressional document). See Copyright Office Memorandum of May 26,
    1958 reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.A.A.N. at 3456. Congress did not waive its
    speech or debate clause immunity when it amended Sec. 1498. However,
    insofar as activities outside of the legislative sphere (e.g.,
    political activities) are concerned, it would appear as if Sec. 1498(b)
    would not shield Congress from a copyright infringement action.
        \52\ Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corp., 829 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
    (holding that the government only waives immunity under Sec. 1498(b)
    for third-party infringements that are authorized or consented to by
    the government rather than for any copyright infringement that a third
    party may choose to undertake). The Auerbach case, relying on the
    legislative history of this provision, is the sole case construing
    Sec. 1498(b). Sec. 1498(a), the sister provision waiving immunity for
    patent infringements, has been interpreted more often--courts holding
    that such waiver is limited to direct governmental infringement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The protection of intellectual property rights in the information
    age and the balance between copyright owners' exclusive rights to
    control the uses of their creative works and the public's right of fair
    use of and access to copyrighted works are being addressed by Congress
    \53\ and the courts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ In December 1996, the World Intellectual Property Organization
    (WIPO) adopted two new intellectual property treaties--the WIPO
    Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaties. The Copyright
    Treaty covers copyright protection for computer programs and for
    databases as intellectual works, and uses of copyrighted works in
    digital electronic environments, including transmissions over the
    Internet. The Administration's treaty implementation bills (S. 1121 and
    H.R. 2281) were introduced at the end of July 1997. Alternative WIPO
    implementation bills (S. 1146 and H.R. 2180) also address additional
    Internet policies issues. See U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional
    Research Service. World Intellectual Property Organization Performances
    and Phonograms Treaty: An Overview (CRS Report for Congress 97-523A);
    and U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Online
    Service Provider Copyright Liability: Analysis and Discussion of H.R.
    2180 and S. 1146 (CRS Report for Congress 97-950A). See also H.R. 3048,
    introduced in November 1997, which implements the WIPO treaties and
    updates United States copyright laws to accommodate the developments of
    digital technology (addressing, e.g., ``fair use,'' ``first sale,'' and
    distance learning). H.R. 2652, the ``Collections of Information
    Antipiracy Act'' would create sui generis protection, distinct from
    copyright protection, for collections of facts, data or works of
    authorship. Government collections of information are excluded.
    Exceptions address acts such as the extraction of insubstantial parts
    of collections of information; independent gathering of information;
    non-profit educational, scientific or research uses; and extraction for
    news reporting. The bill responds to the Supreme Court's decision in
    Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
    which held that comprehensive collections of facts arranged in
    conventional formats were not protected and could not be
    constitutionally protected under copyright. For an overview of
    legislative proposals introduced in the 104th Congress, see U.S.
    Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Copyright
    Proposals for the National Information Infrastructure (CRS Report for
    Congress 95-1166A).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary, where permission has been granted to CRS to use
    copyrighted material, it has likely been based on legislative purpose
    and limited to the print (rather than the electronic) environment.
        If access is broadened to members of the general public,
    congressional release may be outside the scope of ``legitimate
    legislative purpose.'' In such cases, a traditional fair use analysis
    may not provide an affirmative defense to an infringement action and
    liability could attach.\54\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ Liability, however, would be limited by the exclusive remedies
    provided for in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1498(b). Copyright owners may not wish
    to assume the costs associated with Sec. 1498(b) litigation in light of
    the limited damages that are available under this section.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The copyright law is intended to foster the creation and
    dissemination of intellectual works for the public welfare and to
    reward authors for their contribution to society. Striking a fair
    balance between the authors' exclusive rights to control the
    dissemination of their works and the public interest \55\ is ever more
    challenging in the electronic environment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ REGISTER'S REPORT, supra n.39 at 6:
        Within reasonable limits, the interests of authors coincide with
    those of the public. Both will usually benefit from the widest possible
    dissemination of the author's works. But it is often cumbersome for
    would-be users to seek out the copyright owner and get his permission.
    There are many situations in which copyright restrictions would inhibit
    dissemination, with little or no benefit to the author. And the
    interests of authors must yield to the public welfare where they
    conflict. * * * While some limitations and conditions on copyright are
    essential in the public interest, they should not be so burdensome and
    strict as to deprive authors of their just reward * * *.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Public interest in dissemination of government documents must be
    weighed against the legitimate governmental purposes that are served in
    the Government's exercise of due diligence in not infringing copyrights
    (e.g., restricting the public's use of proprietary information
    incorporated in a government document). Although it may be possible to
    limit liability to some extent by taking certain diligent measures,\56\
    some degree of liability may continue to exist. There is some risk of
    assertion of copyright infringement if CRS materials containing
    proprietary material (and intended to support congressional needs) are
    made available on a wholesale basis on-line to members of the general
    public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ For example, notifying the public that although there are no
    restrictions on the replication of CRS materials--copyrighted materials
    contained therein may not be used without permission of the copyright
    owner.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

     Attachment A.--Congressional Budget Office Preliminary Cost Estimate,
           S. 1578--CRS Website for Public Use, Preliminary Worksheet

     SUMMARY OF CBO PRELIMINARY WORKSHEET FOR S. 1578 [105TH CONGRESS]--CRS
                           WEBSITE FOR PUBLIC USE \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lower bound     Upper bound
                                                 estimate        estimate
                  Cost elements                  (includes       (includes
                                                 start-up      costs of full
                                                  costs)         phase-in)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Direct Costs (programmers; financial            $220,300        $467,963
     costs of increased interactions with
     the public)............................
    Indirect Costs (start-up plus added              358,560         202,051
     product review procedures, tracking,
     legal and administrative costs)........
    Additional demand (costs of increased          1,292,060       6,460,300
     number of congressional and public
     requests)..............................
                                             -------------------------------
          Estimated Added Costs.............       1,870,920       7,130,314
                                             ===============================
    Estimated Added Costs as a percent of               2.90           11.04
     fiscal year 1998 budget................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ S. 393 and H.R. 654, bills introduced in the 106th Congress, are
      similar to S. 1578 (105th Congress). Accordingly, the estimated costs
      of implementing the current bills would appear to be generally
      comparable to the estimated costs contained in the CBO preliminary
      worksheet for S. 1578.

        Mr. Mulhollan. In particular, I would like to note that the
    preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office found
    that last year's proposal could cost CRS as much as $7 million
    each year. The current bills do not significantly alter the
    assumptions on which that estimate is based.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, I fully appreciate the
    budgetary constraints before this subcommittee as it crafts
    appropriations for the Legislative Branch. It is for that
    reason that our request is limited to the funds essential to
    sustain our current efforts.
        Our top priority is to provide Congress with efficient,
    cost effective support that meets your highest standards for
    quality, comprehensiveness, accuracy, objectivity, and
    nonpartisanship.
        Thank you.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.

         reprogramming fiscal 1999 funding to evaluate Personnel system

        The Library is requesting authority to reprogram $400,000
    in fiscal year 1999 funds to evaluate the personnel system.
    What do you hope that evaluation will accomplish?
        Will it result in savings in personnel costs or is it aimed
    primarily at trying to increase efficiency with costs remaining
    where they are? Give me a feel for this.
        Senator Bennett. I think the Deputy Librarian will address
    this most efficiently.
        General Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Library of Congress is currently facing a unique
    opportunity and challenge in that 45 percent of our workforce
    will be eligible to retire by the year 2004.
        Currently we have about 125 people that we replace every
    year. When we extrapolate a fraction of that 50 percent over
    each year between now and 2004, we could be inundated with more
    than twice the number that we would normally have to replace
    were we not to embark on a contingency that would allow us to
    hire and fill vacancies in a timely manner and also take
    advantage of this opportunity to streamline our system.
        The deliverables that we would hope to accomplish, with
    your approval of this reprogramming process, are these:
        We would develop a short-term plan that would help us to
    replace people in excess of the numbers that we normally have
    to deal with--that's short-term. We would also be able to start
    an integrated plan that would see us design, examine, and
    implement pilots that would streamline our entire hiring
    process for the out-years.
        For this money we would be getting immediate help in terms
    of a contingency plan. We would also obtain outside help with a
    transformation plan that we would devise and implement over the
    next 4 years.
        Senator Bennett. This calls on a crystal ball, but do you
    have any sense about available applicants? You commented, Dr.
    Billington, that this is a unique kind of employment with
    almost one-of-a-kind sort of jobs there. As the body of
    expertise represented by your present personnel ``graduates,''
    if you will, is there a pool of people willing to come into
    this kind of work behind them? Or should there be some
    recruiting efforts connected with your evaluation?
        General Scott. Yes, sir, we have surveys that both CRS and
    Library Services have conducted which have identified the
    professionals who, if they left, would create a tremendous
    void. With that, we have developed a succession plan including
    recruitment to backfill the critical spaces should those staff
    leave next year or the year after. We do have a plan in place
    that would allow us to fill those critical positions.
        Dr. Billington. Let me just add a word on that and then Mr.
    Mulhollan may want to say something more.
        As General Scott pointed out, we do have not only this plan
    to recruit these people but a specific plan. Because these jobs
    are so one-of-a-kind, you cannot just hire somebody, so to
    speak, off the street or out of some other position because
    nothing is quite analogous to most of the jobs in the Library
    of Congress.

                              Succession planning

        So the succession planning, which is an important part of
    our budget submission this year, would bring in some people who
    could be mentored by the people who are in, in effect, mission
    critical positions. This is particularly important where there
    is collective memory in CRS, and I am sure Mr. Mulhollan will
    speak to this. But it is also important in Library Services,
    where for these immense collections there is knowledge that is
    in people's heads. Here we have a very small turnover; 17 to 20
    years is about the average time of service. So it is very
    important that the knowledge in their heads be transported,
    transformed, be passed on, as it were, to other employees.
        That is why the succession planning that we are applying
    for this year and that you were kind enough to begin helping us
    within CRS last year is so important, both to CRS and to
    Library Services. We want to continue to have efficient
    navigators through this great storehouse of information.
        You may want to add to that, Mr. Mulhollan.

                            CRS recruitment program

        Mr. Mulhollan. What the Congressional Research Service did
    back in 1996 is survey the roughly 300 people who are eligible
    to retire. We had over 95 percent participation.
        What we then did is an analysis of those who said they
    would be retiring in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Two-thirds of
    those eligible between now and 2006 told us that they would be
    retiring during that period of time.
        Senator Bennett. You do not allow them to believe in odd-
    numbered years, then? [Laughter.]
        Mr. Mulhollan. We are clustering there. We think in terms
    of Congresses.
        We then identified people in each subject area. Say that we
    had 6 people as a baseline for January 1, 1997. If we had 6
    people in Natural Resources and 3 of those were retiring by
    2002, we would say that we were at 50 percent risk.
        We then established an aggressive recruitment program
    throughout the country, including Utah and California. We went
    to the public policy schools and the graduate schools, and met
    with the deans and the heads of the public policy schools. We
    told them about a program where we use law and graduate recruit
    programs to recruit at the law schools and graduate schools
    once we identify those subject areas most at risk. Then we
    began recruiting, trying to get the best and the brightest in
    the country, to serve the Congress.
        Gratefully, a large number of young people are captured by
    serving, to help insure the continuing functioning of
    democracy.
        In some business schools it is a little harder, to be
    perfectly frank. They would have to make a sacrifice. We are
    talking about only being able to offer a third of the salaries
    that they could get on the outside. There are some public
    policy schools where we face the same problems as well.
        Notwithstanding that--we pushed for public service--we then
    align those subject areas to where our greatest risk is in
    trying to get them to come in during the summer. We have 20
    grad recruits this coming summer, in 1999, in various areas. We
    fund them for the summer. If they like us and we like them, we
    can offer them a position and they will have another year to
    complete their Master's or their Ph.D.
        That is the major recruitment program that we have revived
    to meet this challenge.
        When we bring them on-board into CRS, it takes quite a
    while, even if you have a Ph.D. in economics, to be able to
    work in this environment. Some schools are very strong in
    giving students some of these skills in addition to the
    knowledge of their discipline our new employees need to be able
    to compartmentalize. This is because, as an analyst, you have
    to work with the Majority and Minority in one chamber and
    compartmentalize so that the information that you receive from
    one never interferes or gets shared with the other.
        So it takes time to carry four compartments, as an example,
    to learn how you can manage serving both chambers and both
    sides of the aisle, as well as understanding your discipline in
    the context of the writing of law.
        We say that it takes between 3 and 5 years to do that kind
    of training and, hopefully, with the people who have been here
    for 20-plus years, we can pass on that knowledge and skill.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        That is very helpful and it is encouraging that you are
    doing this kind of detail.

                                  ILS project

        The Integrated Library System originally was projected to
    cost $15 million over 7 years. It now is estimated that it will
    cost $270 more in fiscal year 2000 and $17 million over the
    course of the project.
        Can you go over that with us, why the project is over
    budget, whether it is still on time, whether there will be
    further increases that we might look for?
        Dr. Billington. Again, I would look to our Chief Operating
    Officer, General Scott, on this matter.
        General Scott. Yes, sir.
        As you pointed out, Senator, we estimated a figure that
    proved to be less than the actual contract value in two areas:
    the 5-year contract cost for hardware maintenance is $700,000
    higher than we estimated. The 5-year contract cost for software
    maintenance is $1.2 million higher than we estimated.
        Both of those came in higher on the final contract than
    what we had originally expected.
        We believe that the ILS program will add the anticipated
    increase in equipment and maintenance costs to the Library's
    request for funding beginning in 2001. We think that what we
    are going to ask for will satisfy the maintenance and the
    software costs for those out-years.
        Dr. Billington. Those original estimates were made by an
    outside company, Abacus Abacus, in 1996. So they were estimates
    that were professionally given to us from the outside on the
    basis of market conditions at that time. They were not as far-
    seeing as they might have been.
        Senator Bennett. Senator Feinstein.

                      impact of the potential Retirements

        Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, let me just for a moment
    go back to the subject that you raised.
        I am a big fan of the Library. If I were in your shoes, Dr.
    Billington, I just don't know, but a loss of almost 50 percent
    of the institutional memory of the institution in this short
    period of time would really concern me very greatly.
        Could I ask you this question? Are most of these
    retirements on one level or are they spread throughout the
    institutional hierarchy?
        Dr. Billington. I think they are spread fairly evenly
    throughout the institution. But they are particularly
    potentially devastating in terms of the curators, for instance,
    of our foreign and special collections.
        There was a great deal of hiring in the immediate post-war
    period and after Sputnik. It was very big. People are now
    reaching retirement age throughout the system.
        I can give you the exact breakdown in terms of the levels.
        Senator Feinstein. But a lot of them are on the level of
    curator?

                       Career enhancement succession plan

        Dr. Billington. A lot of them are at the curatorial level,
    yes. This is why we think it is extremely important to have
    succession planning. That is particularly important.
        The career enhancement succession plan that we submitted to
    you is designed to help insulate us largely from the
    retirements of the professional staff who are primarily in
    grades GS-12 and GS-13.
        These are pretty substantial; 25 percent, actually, of
    Library Services staff are already eligible for retirement.
    There will be added another 25 percent in the following 5
    years. It is a very immediate problem.
        In fiscal year 1998, 40 retired. We have not had that
    devastating a retirement problem yet. We are talking about
    those who are eligible to retire. They don't have to retire.
    Still, it is a very serious problem. This is why we have to
    have some overlap with people coming in. This is why the
    succession planning is so important that we have presented to
    the committee this year.
        Senator Feinstein. So by ``succession planning,'' you would
    essentially mean a staggering of the retirements?
        Dr. Billington. Well, we cannot determine, once people are
    eligible to retire, when they will retire. Most employees who
    have served that long have a certain loyalty and dedication to
    their work and to see that it continues to be performed well.
    We expect a lot of voluntary cooperation to avoid creating a
    sudden rush.
        But since we cannot control it, we feel it is very
    important to hire people, particularly in some of the areas
    where we are very highly dependent on individuals with an
    immense amount of knowledge which cannot really be written down
    and easily transferred.
        Senator Feinstein. Name some of those areas just so I can
    get a sense of it.
        Dr. Billington. There are curators who have for instance an
    extraordinary knowledge of the history of American music, for
    which we have one curator in particular of whom I am thinking,
    though there are several who have extensive knowledge that is
    really unequalled anywhere else. Of course, we have, by far,
    the largest collection of American music in the world--in all
    forms, sheet music, recorded sound, et cetera.
        The entire entertainment industry depends, in many ways, on
    the memory of some of these people.
        Another example would be in conservation. We give 400,000
    items conservation treatment--technical, chemical conservation
    treatment--of one kind or another every year. There are people
    who know the whole history of different efforts of
    conservation, who can tell by the feel of different materials
    exactly what is the appropriate thing to use. Those are all
    highly, highly technical skills.
        Or, there are staff members who are knowledgeable in some
    foreign language area who are very difficult to replace. In the
    Law Library, we have staff who know both the language and the
    legal systems of Third World countries which can suddenly
    become important.
        Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this. Take, for example,
    just the music aspect of it. Is it possible to ask your
    curators to give you, say, a year's notice of when they might
    retire so that you can begin to reach out into the effective
    communities?
        Dr. Billington. That is a very good suggestion. In fact,
    generally they do give us pretty good notice. Our curators are
    such dedicated folks that they have as much of a concern as you
    and I do that the continuity be maintained. So we usually get
    pretty good notice.
        But that is a good idea and perhaps we ought to make that a
    standard operating procedure.
        It is very important to know that one of the marvels of
    having the depth of such collections as we have is that the
    staff who work with them acquire just immense knowledge for
    which there is no equal. You cannot hire any professor of music
    in the country that will have the same knowledge.
        Senator Feinstein. Right. That is evident. When I came back
    here, why that Library was just astounding. So it really hit me
    when you said that you were expecting a 40 percent retirement
    within, essentially, a 5 year period of time. That kind of
    means a whole turnover in the focus of the institution.
        Dr. Billington. They are eligible for retirement. But we
    cannot lose them all at once.
        Senator Feinstein. And there is not a mandatory age for
    retirement, either. I mean, people can stay if they wish.
        Dr. Billington. That's right. Generally speaking, people
    can stay on.
        Senator Feinstein. Do you think that will be the case?
        Dr. Billington. We hope so and we think so. But, again,
    these staff members have served a long time and we cannot
    dictate to them.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, life changes.
        Dr. Billington. With less FTEs than we had some years ago,
    the burdens of people are increasing. As they get older,
    sometimes that is difficult. For instance, our special
    collections normally serve a few professional scholars, but
    they are now producing materials that are going out on the Web
    for school children. We are getting tremendous usage from the
    Web and the National Digital Library.
        Staff members have a new obligation to communicate their
    knowledge to a national audience. It's not just professional
    scholars but now it is everyone from school children to
    retirees. There is a big usage of our National Digital Library
    by people who have retired who are developing interests,
    intellectual interests, through the use of this material. That
    is a responsibility of our curators as well.
        The work burden is heavy. But we can do this rationally if
    we receive the help that we are requesting from the committee
    this year.

                                Personnel system

        Senator Feinstein. Now if I understand you correctly, you
    are also reprogramming $400,000 to take a look at the personnel
    system. That is a separate reprogramming?
        Dr. Billington. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. And that is expected to achieve what in
    your view?
        Dr. Billington. I will let General Scott address that.
        General Scott. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
        Our personnel system at the Library of Congress is 53 years
    old and we have many provisions which prevent us from hiring in
    a timely manner.
        On average, it takes us about 125 days to get a vacancy
    through the entire process. We would take advantage of this
    opportunity, since we have this window in which we have so many
    people leaving, to examine alternatives to the traditional
    hiring process which would give us greater flexibility in
    direct hire authority. It also could give us the opportunity to
    have pay-per-performance rather than the current system which
    is pay-by-tenure, so to speak.
        The $400,000 that we are asking to be reprogrammed would
    give us the opportunity to have a contingency in the event that
    a fraction of the people that we are talking about choose to
    leave next year.
        The numbers are these: if our current FTE base remains the
    same, about 4,600 employees, 50 percent of that number would be
    over 2,000. If just 10 percent of those retired next year, we
    would be adding over 200 vacancies on top of the normal 125.
    With this money, we could develop a plan for how we will get
    these additional people hired in the event that 10 percent
    decide to go next year?
        The money will also help us to realize pilots to streamline
    the hiring process and improve the classification process, so
    that over the next 2 to 3 year period we could examine, improve
    and implement mechanisms that work, with the end result of a
    new hiring process for the Library of Congress that is both
    flexible and fair.

                            Copyright fees increase

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very, very much.
        I have just one quick question on the Copyright fee
    increase. You have increased your most frequent fee from $20 to
    $30, a 50 percent increase. Is there much objection to that
    from the Copyright related public?
        Coming from a big intellectual property State, I am just
    curious here.
        Dr. Billington. Ms. Peters will address that.
        Ms. Peters. We went to the Congress to seek help; it passed
    a law which put in place the system that we now have, which
    required the Copyright Office to have outside consultants do a
    cost analysis of all of our fee services.
        The cost analysis for the basic registration fee was $45.
    The legislation also allows us to take into account fairness,
    equity, and the objectives of the system. So basic proposal was
    $45; we had an alternative proposal which would have given a
    subsidy to individual authors. Our ultimate decision, however,
    was $30.
        So I can tell you that most people are happy with the $30,
    compared to the $45.
        Senator Feinstein. Now that's a good way of doing it.
    [Laughter.]
        Ms. Peters. The other thing is that I met with every author
    group before we even made our proposal. The reaction on the
    whole has been rather favorable.
        So we do not expect much objection.
        Senator Feinstein. What you are saying, though, is even at
    the $30 level, that does not really cover costs?
        Ms. Peters. No.
        We went to full cost recovery for all fee services except
    the basic registration fee. Fees will bring in 70 percent of
    the money that it takes to operate the Copyright Office. We
    have programs, such as our policy programs, public information
    programs and the mandatory deposit system which brings material
    into the Library of Congress from people who choose not to
    register their works, that are covered by appropriated funds.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Do you have any additional questions?
        Senator Feinstein. No. I think that completes it for me,
    Mr. Chairman. But I would just say that I am the biggest fan of
    both CRS and the Library. I think this is one of the very best
    things the Federal Government does.
        Senator Bennett. I agree absolutely.
        I have one last question. Mr. Mulhollan, you mentioned this
    in your remarks, but I want to get it focused and crystallized.

                    concerns of putting CRS products online

        Senator McCain has introduced legislation to require
    posting of CRS products on the Internet. While this bill is
    different from the one introduced to the last Congress, I am
    assuming that you are still concerned about the impact that it
    would have and I would like to give you an opportunity to
    comment on the impact of the new bill so when it comes up on
    the floor or wherever, we will have the benefit of your
    specific comment on the bill issue.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you, Senator.
        Again, I appreciate the compliments inherent in the measure
    and the proposal itself, and the changes it made, one of which
    is to have the CRS material on the Senate website. I do believe
    it intends to try to address some of the legal issues we had
    identified.
        As you recall, speech and debate protections are focused on
    the legislative function, not the informing function. As a
    result, the concern would be that if the wholesale
    dissemination of the Service's products are put up, the courts
    would see us as having an informing function, not focused on
    legislation.
        The Senate Legal Counsel is currently defending CRS against
    a discovery right now in fact. We have always won these
    discoveries, particularly leading with the speech and debate
    protections, and sustained the position that our sole client is
    Congress and that as our work is focused on the Congress, it is
    a legislative function.
        The concern that I have is that the basis of most of those
    works that are distributed to all Members of Congress, is the
    research for the confidential memoranda--there were 2,400 last
    year--and briefings that we did on our research. The risk is
    that underpinning could be exposed and be on a court docket
    under discovery because they would go behind the report to get
    original, and confidential material.
        So that is still a primary concern. So I am looking to
    those measures.
        The Senate Rules and Administration Committee took
    seriously the concerns and sent out a Dear Colleague letter
    last year that urged members and committees to select those
    items that they deemed appropriate for use by their
    constituents and to place them on their Web sites.
        That's fine. CRS products have always been placed in
    committee hearings and submitted for the record, as chosen by
    that Member.
        The concern is not that the selection will not be there but
    the wholesale dissemination of the Service's products. That, I
    think, is a critical role. I believe, as a matter of principle,
    as we discussed last year, it is appropriate for a constituent
    to go to the Senator, whom they elect and for whom they have
    responsibilities, when they have a question on legislation, not
    to an unelected bureaucracy. We serve you and support you on
    those issues.
        Another concern, of course, is the fact, as you very well
    know, that the Legislative Branch is severely constrained in
    funding. We anticipate, as part of the cost estimate, that
    those costs range between $2 million and $7 million, and that,
    in fact, it would represent a shift of focus of scarce
    resources to a public function and away from serving Congress.
        To be perfectly frank, I feel that we are doing our best to
    help Congress with legislation. But I feel that Congress needs
    more help and that, anything that shifts resources away from
    Congress and to serving the public, will diminish our capacity
    to help with the legislative function.
        In addition, over time it may shift our focus. The concern
    is that--and I am someone who pays attention and everyone tries
    to maintain their professional ties--if the products become
    more and more open as public documents, it could shift
    analysts' focus to their association and their professional
    expertise rather than the legislative work at hand and this is
    the focus that we are trying to get for you.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate that and we
    appreciate your frankness last year. I am glad to have an
    update on the legislation this year. I have decided not to co-
    sponsor that particular piece of legislation.
        Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming and we will
    do our very best to give you the support you need.
                           GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
                THE UNITED STATES

                               welcoming remarks

        Senator Bennett. Our second witness is Mr. David Walker,
    Comptroller General of the United States.
        We are delighted to welcome you sir, if for no other
    reason, than that I will no longer have to hear Senator Dorgan
    complain about the fact that the office is still vacant.
        I always joined in those complaints with him. I never
    criticized him because I think his crusade to get that done was
    very well placed.
        We miss Senator Dorgan on the subcommittee. But we are
    delighted you are here. We look forward to hearing your plans
    for the agency. You have been there for all of 6 months. So,
    naturally, you have all of the answers by now. [Laughter.]
        I also want to acknowledge Jim Hinchman. His services as
    Acting Comptroller General during the interim period were very
    much appreciated. He had a difficult job to execute.
        We want you to know, Mr. Hinchman, that the committee
    appreciates your stewardship of the agency during some
    difficult times. When we went through the downsizing experience
    the full burden fell on you.
        Mr. Walker, your agency was in good hands while it was
    waiting for your arrival.
        Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. The GAO requests $388.9 million for fiscal
    year 2000. As an old retailer, I know the difference in price
    points and the ``.9'' sounds good.
        This is a 9 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999
    level.
        I do want to make one other comment--again, my obsession
    with Y2K problems. The Y2K issue would not be as close to a
    resolution as it is if it were not for the GAO.
        Of all the agencies in the government, the GAO has been the
    most forthcoming, has had the highest level of expertise, and
    the greatest amount of candor than any government agency that
    we have dealt with.
        Wearing my other hat, as chairman of the Senate Committee
    on the Year 2000, I can tell you we would not have been able to
    function without the GAO and without the high level of
    professionalism and honesty that they have brought to that
    challenge.
        So, while we were cutting you back on the one hand, we were
    giving you additional duties on the other, and the agency has
    responded magnificently well.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. I think he ought to stop while he is so
    far ahead, Mr. Chairman. Those were very nice comments.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Walker. Can I get my pension today, Mr. Chairman?
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Feinstein. Mr. English just mentioned to me that
    this is Mr. Walker's first time here. It might be appropriate
    to put a biographical sketch in the record.
        Senator Bennett. I think that would be appropriate.
        If you could, furnish us with what you think is appropriate
    for the committee. We would appreciate that.
        Mr. Walker. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

                     Biographical Sketch of David M. Walker

        David M. Walker was sworn in on November 9, 1998 at the age
    of 47, as the 7th Comptroller General of the United States in
    the agency's 77-year history. Before coming to GAO, Mr. Walker
    served at Arthur Andersen & Company in Atlanta as a partner and
    global managing director of the firm's human capital services
    practice. Mr. Walker was head of the firm's work in helping
    organizations maximize their investments in human capital. He
    also was in charge of the firm's employee benefit plan audit/
    assurance and independent fiduciary/risk management practices,
    and served on the board of Arthur Andersen Financial Advisors.
    His work, international in scope, involved engagements in a
    wide range of public and private sector organizations,
    including government, financial services, institutional funds,
    insurance, transportation, manufacturing, health care,
    professional services, telecommunications, utilities,
    agriculture, defense contracting, retail, real estate, and
    energy. He is a co-author of the recent book ``Delivering on
    the Promise: How to Attract, Manage, and Retain Human
    Capital''; and the author of ``Retirement Security:
    Understanding and Planning Your Financial Future'', published
    in 1997.
        After graduating from Jacksonville University in Florida
    where he earned a B.S. degree in accounting in 1973, Mr. Walker
    who is a CPA and registered investment advisor, worked in
    auditing at Coopers & Lybrand and Price Waterhouse, and in
    regional operations management with Source Services
    Corporation, an international human resources consulting and
    search firm, and Coopers & Lybrand. His 12 years of federal
    experience--from 1983 to 1995--included service as acting head
    of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, as Assistant
    Secretary of Labor for pension and welfare benefit programs,
    and as a public trustee of the Social Security and Medicare
    trust funds. Mr. Walker has also earned an SMG certificate in
    public policy from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of
    Government.
        Mr. Walker was born on October 2, 1951 in Birmingham,
    Alabama, was married in 1970 to Mary Etheredge, and is the
    father of two grown children, Carol and Andrew.

        Senator Bennett. He comes from the private sector of
    consulting and accounting. I have forgotten which was your
    firm--Arthur Andersen?
        Mr. Walker. Arthur Andersen most recently and Price
    Waterhouse Coopers previously.
        Senator Bennett. We are delighted to have you here. We
    welcome you. We hope this will always be if not a happy at
    least a somewhat satisfying annual experience for you.

                          highlights of GAO activities

        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein. It
    is a pleasure to be here.
        As you noted, Mr. Chairman, I am new in the job--4 months
    on the calendar but 6 months on the clock. You were probably
    going by the clock, I would imagine. We have had some fairly
    long hours lately.
        I would like to add my thanks, as well, to your remarks
    about Jim Hinchman. He did an excellent job during the 2-year
    tenure under very difficult circumstances. The appointment
    process dragged on for about 16 months after it got started. It
    went from me being patient to being persistent, to persevering,
    to pain. But, finally, it got done.
        Senator Bennett. Not to panic, of course. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Walker. No, not to panic. I did not get to that point
    or else I would not be here. [Laughter.]
        Mostly it was every other word beginning with ``P'' that I
    can think of, Senator. But, fortunately, it is over and I only
    have to go through it one time in my life. So I am looking
    forward to the next 14 years and 8 months.
        It is truly an honor and a pleasure to be part of the GAO
    team. As you have probably heard me say before, I believe the
    GAO is one of the best, if not the best, agencies in the
    Federal Government and clearly one of the most important.
        As you know, we are a multidisciplinary professional
    services organization. I have headed several multidisciplinary
    professional services organizations before in the private and
    public sectors. I have had two prior presidential appointments
    before taking this third one. I previously served as a public
    trustee of Social Security and Medicare and as Assistant
    Secretary of Labor for ERISA. I also ran the Pension Benefit
    Guaranty Corporation. I ran Arthur Andersen's Human Capital
    Services practice globally and now have responsibility for the
    GAO.
        The Congress is our client. We are a service organization.
    This has to be first and foremost in our mind. We have to be
    client focused. We have a number of initiatives underway to
    enhance our client focus and to support the Congress even
    better than we have in the past.
        We are your front line troops. Quite candidly, Mr. Chairman
    and Senator Feinstein, at a time when there has been
    significant downsizing and we have experienced a 39 percent
    head-count reduction from our peak in 1992 and at a time where
    Congress itself has had a significant downsizing in staff,
    increased staff turnover, and less average tenure on
    Congressional staff. GAO is going to be more important in the
    years ahead in order to put the Congress on a level playing
    field with the Executive Branch, regardless of who is in charge
    of the Executive Branch.
        We are going to be increasingly important.
        Our name is somewhat of a misnomer. We are called the
    ``General Accounting Office,'' and that is a challenge because
    when you say ``accounting,'' people tend to stereotype you. But
    the fact of the matter is less than 25 percent of what we do is
    about accounting and auditing.
        Accountability is what we are all about. We do accounting,
    we do auditing, we do investigations, we do program reviews, we
    do policy analysis, we render legal judgments--it is all about
    accountability.
        We are committed to three core values--which I think are
    important to articulate--to serve the Congress and the American
    people. The first is accountability. That is what we do. We
    help the Congress oversee the Executive Branch. We help make
    sure that the government works for the benefit of the American
    people.
        The second is integrity. That is how we do what we do--
    professional, objective, fact based, nonpartisan,
    nonideological, fair and balanced.
        Third, reliability, is how we want what we do to be
    received by the Congress--timely, accurate, useful, clear, and
    candid. It's just the facts. We say what we mean, we mean what
    we say, and we try to help the Congress do a better job for the
    American people.
        Our objectives are generally three. First, I think it is
    our job to help the Congress continuously improve the economy,
    efficiency, and effectiveness of the Federal Government for the
    benefit of the American people.
        Second, we want to be a world class organization that leads
    by example. We are the agency that reviews others. It is
    imperative, therefore, that we be as good or better than any
    other agency. Otherwise we would be hypocrites, and I don't
    like being a hypocrite. I won't be a hypocrite.
        Third, working together in a partnership, as we have on Y2K
    and many other areas, we cannot only make a difference in
    economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, but, hopefully, we can
    also help to improve the people's confidence in and respect for
    their government, which I think we would all hope to achieve.
        With regard to our budget request, I am not asking for any
    FTE increases. I believe it would be premature and
    inappropriate to do that. I am only 4 months on the job. I have
    done a lot of due diligence, I have done a lot of work, but I
    need to do more in order to be able to make a considered
    judgment on FTE levels.
        I am asking for some targeted investments to help us
    improve our efficiency and effectiveness in order to increase
    our flexibility such that we can improve our timeliness and
    better serve the Congress, and to understand how best to
    prepare ourselves for the 21st Century. I will touch on those
    in a few minutes.
        As far as results, I think it is important to consider the
    results; 96 percent of our work is Congressionally directed.
    That is up from about 33 percent, when Elmer Staats left in
    1980. About 4 percent is self-initiated now. Our service is
    both to the Majority and Minority.

                              Self-initiated work

        Senator Bennett. Run through those numbers again. You said
    96 percent and that is up from 33 percent.
        Mr. Walker. Right.
        Senator Bennett. Do you mean 33 percent was self-directed
    and now it is down to 4 percent?
        Mr. Walker. Well, actually, about 66 percent was self-
    directed when Elmer Staats left in 1980. You are correct and I
    think it is good to clarify it for the record. About 66 percent
    was self-directed in 1980, when Elmer Staats left office, and
    now it is down to 4 percent.
        Senator Bennett. Now it is down to 4 percent. All right.
        Mr. Walker. This is one of the consequences of the
    downsizing, because our mandates are going up, and our
    Congressional requests are going up. But obviously we have 39
    percent less staff. Something has to give. We have improved
    productivity, we have improved efficiency, but what gives is
    self-initiated work.
        I think, importantly, I would like to provide for the
    record, if it is all right, Mr. Chairman, three ``Top Ten''
    lists that we have put together to try to help the Congress
    understand the benefits of GAO.
        [The information follows:]
                         Top Ten Self-Initiated Topics
    Savings and Loan Crisis
        Before the savings and loan situation reached crisis proportions,
    GAO advised the Congress that the thrift industry's problems were not
    just related to a then unfavorable interest rate spread, but that a
    much larger asset quality problem existed. GAO's annual financial
    statement audits of the deposit insurance funds and additional analyses
    of industry and regulatory problems showed that serious internal
    control weaknesses and deficient corporate governance as well as
    weaknesses in the regulatory structure were major factors contributing
    to the failure of thrifts and the subsequent cost to the taxpayers.
    GAO's work contributed to the development of legislation to address
    these identified weaknesses.
    Year 2000 Computing Challenge
        In early 1997 GAO alerted the Congress, through its High Risk
    series, to the government's exposure to Year 2000 risks. Working
    closely with the Congress, GAO issued over 70 reports detailing
    specific findings, made over 100 recommendations to agency heads and to
    the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion to improve readiness
    and produced a set of three essential guides to help domestic and
    international organizations structure programs to confront the problem.
    Information Security
        During the last 4 years, GAO has played an instrumental role in
    focusing attention on actions needed to mitigate an alarming and
    increasing array of information security risks. From national security
    to personal privacy, GAO has issued numerous reports identifying
    weaknesses and recommending corrective actions. GAO's reports have
    spurred congressional hearings on the topic, which have clarified the
    issues and set expectations for process and system reforms.
    Nuclear Cleanup
        In the early 1980's GAO began sounding the alarm about the
    ineffective safety oversight of the Department of Energy's nuclear
    facilities as well as the massive problems it faced in attempting to
    address the legacy of environmental contamination created by decades of
    nuclear weapons production. GAO also was the first to alert the
    Congress that the cost of cleanup would be over $100 billion--an
    estimate that has now grown to $235 billion.
    Medicare
        GAO reported to the Congress that excess payments were being made
    to Medicare home health providers and Medicare HMO's. The home health
    care industry was growing rapidly--from $2.7 billion in 1989 to $17.8
    billion in 1997. During this growth, the government's scrutiny of
    contractors was decreasing. As for the Medicare HMO program, in one
    state alone, GAO identified over $1 billion in excess payments. The
    Congress spurred partially by such reports enacted the 1997 Balanced
    Budget Act provisions to curtail excess payments for such services.
    DOD Purchasing and Inventory
        Knowing that many of the Department of Defense's purchasing and
    inventory management goals were not dissimilar from private industry's,
    GAO devised a methodology to match DOD's practices against the best
    practices of industry and to demonstrate in its reports and testimonies
    better ways of doing business. In the inventory area the work has
    produced budgetary savings, legislative actions and improvements in
    DOD's operations. With regard to purchasing, top DOD management has
    incorporated GAO's recommendations into its own ``acquisition reform''
    initiatives.
    Food Safety
        In 1992, GAO started a series of reviews that have highlighted
    fundamental weaknesses in government systems to ensure food safety.
    First, GAO pointed out that the poultry and meat inspection system
    which had been designed around the turn of the century to protect
    against health threats from diseased animals was no longer effective,
    hampered by inflexible legal requirements and outdated, labor intensive
    inspection methods. GAO also reported that testing for chemicals in
    food products could not detect or prevent contaminated food from
    entering the food supply. Since then a new approach to food safety
    regulation has been adopted that requires a scientific monitoring
    system and microbial testing for overall sanitary conditions.
    Reengineering IRS
        IRS collects $1.7 trillion a year to fund the federal government
    and likely has more interactions with the American public than any
    other government agency. GAO has, over many years, expressed concerns
    over management weaknesses at IRS and how those weaknesses are
    manifested in the treatment of taxpayers. In fact, 70 GAO reports were
    cited in the 1997 Report of the National Commission on Restructuring
    the IRS that led the way for the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
    which promises improvements in IRS' internal management and computer
    modernization as well as the treatment of taxpayers.
    Aviation Safety and Security
        From air traffic control to aircraft maintenance to airport
    security, GAO has brought the need for improvements to the Congress'
    attention. GAO's report and testimony in the wake of the Valujet
    tragedy contributed to the Federal Aviation Administration's decision
    to make oversight of new airlines a top priority. GAO's testimony on
    foreign aircraft repair stations influenced the Congress to retain
    FAA's ability to certify and oversee these stations. In 1996 GAO
    recommendations led to legislation that required new security measures
    and require periodic reports to the Congress from FAA on the progress
    and efforts to improve aviation security.
    Children's Healthcare
        Beginning in 1994, GAO began assessing the health insurance status
    of children and state programs aimed at expanding coverage for low-
    income children. GAO issued numerous reports and testified on the
    issues that resulted in widely quoted analyses documenting the failure
    to enroll almost 3.4 million eligible children into Medicaid.
    Subsequently, the Congress and the Administration enacted the state
    Children's Health Insurance Program. This is the largest health program
    implemented since Medicare and Medicaid and is funded at a level to
    reach about half the nation's estimated 9 to 11.6 million uninsured
    children.
               Top Ten Fiscal Year 1998 Financial Accomplishments
    HUD Reserves
        Based on GAO's testimony, Congress rescinded $3.65 billion from
    HUD's assisted housing program because the large project reserves for
    section 8 housing far exceeded needs.
    DOE Fund Management
        GAO recommended that DOE develop a more effective methodology for
    analyzing its unneeded funds. As a result, DOE identified about $1.8
    billion in excess funds.
    F-22 Fighter
        GAO concluded that DOD planned to begin purchasing F-22 fighters
    before they had demonstrated that the aircraft would operate
    successfully. DOD subsequently delayed its plans to begin purchasing
    thereby eliminating 22 F-22 fighters and reducing the program requests
    for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 by about $1.6 billion.
    Disability Benefits
        To ensure that only the truly disabled were receiving benefits, GAO
    recommended that the Social Security Administration (SSA) increase its
    reviews of disability cases to identify person who, because of their
    current health condition or work status, were no longer eligible for
    benefits. In response, legislation was enacted that increased the
    number of reviews, and these additional reviews resulted in benefit
    terminations that saved the government about $1.5 billion over a two-
    year period.
    IRS Tax Systems
        GAO recommended that IRS should restructure its Tax Systems
    Modernization program to address management and technical weaknesses
    and that the Congress limit funding until improvements are implemented.
    IRS is in the process of restructuring and funding was reduced by about
    $1.1 billion.
    F/A-18 Aircraft
        GAO's analysis showed that, for its cost, a new version of the F/A-
    18 aircraft offered only marginal operational improvement over existing
    versions. In response, DOD reduced its plan buy from 1,000 to 548
    aircraft, which reduced costs by about $1.02 billion in fiscal years
    1998 and 1999.
    DOE Budget
        GAO suggested, as a result of its budget scrub work, that the
    Congress reduce portions of the Department of Energy's (DOE) request
    for its Environmental Management program; Congress reduced DOE's
    funding by about $773.9 million.
    Medicaid Drug Costs
        GAO recommended to the Health Care Financing Administration that
    drug costs in the Medicaid program could be reduced if states installed
    automated systems to identify, prospectively, inappropriate
    prescriptions as well as those that could have adverse reactions.
    Estimated cost savings from implementing this suggestion totaled about
    $668 million fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
    Superfund Contract Funds
        GAO recognized that the Environmental Protection Agency was not
    recovering and using funds from Superfund contracts that were no longer
    needed. In addition, GAO informed the Congress that EPA was not using
    recent and more conservative data for estimating its budget needs.
    Congress did not provide the requested $650 million.
    Medicare Oxygen Cost
        GAO learned that Medicare payments for home oxygen were more
    generous than home oxygen payments made by the Veterans Administration.
    As a result, Congress reduced Medicare rates for home oxygen by 25
    percent in fiscal year 1998 and an additional 5 percent in fiscal year
    1999, reducing costs over a two-year period by about $633 million.
             Top Ten Fiscal Year 1998 Non-Financial Accomplishments
    Surface Transportation Act
        The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act expired at the
    end of fiscal year 1997. GAO's analyses and testimony in November of
    1997 showed that individual states lacked sufficient funds to continue
    planned highway projects. Congress acted quickly and subsequently, on
    December 1, 1997 the President signed the Surface Transportation Act
    Extension that provided the needed funding.
    Competitive Contracting
        For several years GAO had reported that despite DOE's policy to use
    competitive contracting procedures, limited competition actually
    occurred. In response, Congress--as part of the fiscal year 1998
    appropriations act for DOE--precluded DOE from using appropriations for
    contracts that were not competed except in very limited circumstances.
    IRS Computer Security
        GAO summarized the computer security weaknesses identified at five
    IRS facilities that put critical federal operations and assets at risk.
    In response, IRS not only mitigated many of the risks associated with
    those facilities, but also responded to GAO's recommendations for
    entity-wide security management. IRS centralized the responsibility for
    security and privacy issues in an office charged with establishing and
    enforcing standards and policies for all major security programs
    including, but not limited to physical, data, and systems security.
    Year 2000
        To help federal agencies mitigate Year 2000 risks, GAO produced
    guides on business continuity and contingency planning and on testing.
    These guides are being used by the executive branch and are the
    foundation for Year 2000 business continuity and contingency planning
    and testing, which are critical elements to addressing this urgent
    computing challenge. These guides are also being widely used in the
    private sector and by other governments. In addition, GAO's reports and
    testimonies on Year 2000 readiness have included dozens of
    recommendations that have been adopted. For example, the President's
    Council on Year 2000 Conversion, in response to GAO's recommendation,
    adopted a sector-based focus to increase awareness and has begun
    developing a national assessment.
    Defective Parts
        In 1994 and again in 1998, GAO found that DOD was selling excess
    aircraft parts that were defective and could cause flight safety
    problems. In response, DOD established a program and has identified
    over 20,000 such items. These defective items are now sold as scrap.
    Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
        The United States had agreed--as part of the Cooperative Threat
    Reduction Program--to contribute funds for the construction of
    facilities in Russia to destroy chemical weapons. GAO had reported
    that, not only was the U.S. portion of the construction costs
    uncertain, but, despite U.S. funding, the U.S. did not have inspection
    rights. In response, Congress included language in the 1998 Defense
    Authorization Act limiting U.S. contributions and requiring such
    inspection access.
    Health Care Financing
        GAO reported that DOD had incorrectly billed the Health Care
    Financing Administration (HCFA) for facilities' services provided to
    Medicare-eligible persons. The facilities are paid by the Defense
    Department for such services and are not supposed to bill Medicare. In
    response, DOD and HCFA have undertaken joint actions to preclude this
    from happening again.
    Employment Training
        GAO identified 163 federal employment-training programs and found
    that many provided similar services to similar target groups. Specific
    differences among the programs' funding cycles and eligibility
    requirements hampered officials in providing needed services. Using
    GAO's work, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 overhauled the
    structure of these programs and established 3 target groups and funding
    streams: youth, adults, and dislocated workers.
    Financial Derivatives
        GAO recommended that financial regulators improve their oversight
    of all major over-the-counter derivative dealers. The securities and
    futures regulators worked with major U.S. securities firms and
    developed a voluntary self-regulatory framework-consistent with the
    intent of GAO's recommendations-for derivative activities.
    Employee Buy-outs
        GAO's analyses of the government's use of buy-outs for reducing the
    workforce identified areas for improvement. More specifically, GAO
    recommended that agencies conduct strategic and work force planning
    prior to receiving the buyout authority. Congress subsequently passed
    legislation that incorporated the intent of this recommendation.

                              benefits of GAO work

        Mr. Walker. One of those lists is our Top Ten list of self-
    initiated work--things like the savings and loan crisis, Y2K,
    and other issues that will resonate with both of you that
    started out as GAO self-initiated work. Fortunately, leaders
    like you and others picked up the ball, ran with it, and made a
    difference. But my concern is if we don't have some reasonable
    flexibility to do self-initiated work, who is going to be
    looking at the horizon and beyond?
        Realistically, the Congress tends to be focused on more
    immediate concerns and for understandable reasons. But somebody
    has to be focused on the horizon and beyond before issues
    become crises, and if not GAO, then who?
        So we are going to try to do what we can to improve our
    efficiency, but also to try to get some additional flexibility
    to do a little bit more self-initiated work.
        On our return on investment in fiscal year 1998, we had $58
    in financial benefits for every dollar invested in GAO. The
    average return on investment for the last 6 years has been $52
    for every dollar invested.
        I have had a significant amount of activity ongoing in the
    last 4 months--a new strategic planning process; an outreach
    effort with the Congress in order to understand what we are
    doing well, what we could do better, and how we might be able
    to address those concerns; and a variety of other issues that
    are noted in my testimony.
        I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to note that the
    strategic investments that we are asking for are in several
    areas. One is human capital. We are a people business. We are a
    professional services organization; 81 percent of our
    expenditures relate to people.
        We are experiencing similar challenges to what were
    mentioned by the Library of Congress and CRS. About 50 percent
    of our Senior Executive Service will be eligible to retire by
    the year 2004. About 30 percent of our evaluators and auditors
    and investigators will be eligible to retire by the year 2004.
        We had a 5-year hiring freeze. We had to impose this hiring
    freeze in order to make the drastic cuts that were necessary to
    come in line with our reduced budget levels.
        That has left a gap in the pipeline with regard to
    experience that we have just now started to begin filling
    within available resources. We have to take a hard look at
    recruiting and succession planning, and we are doing that.
        This is because people are our intellectual capital. We
    provide intellectual capital for the Congress, we provide
    intellectual capital for the Nation. It is critical that we do
    that.
        We are asking to be put on a level playing field with the
    Executive Branch for performance rewards. Both of you know that
    we cannot compete with the private sector for compensation. We
    just hope that we can continue to attract bright and dedicated
    people who want to serve their country and make a difference.
    It is getting tougher, frankly. But, fortunately, there are
    still those out there who will do it.
        We cannot expect to compete with the private sector on
    money, but we need at least to be able to compete with the
    Executive Branch. Right now, we are in a situation where we
    cannot compete with the Executive Branch because our
    performance reward system is not adequately funded.
        Therefore, we need to get at least on a level playing field
    with the Executive Branch because we are the best recruiting
    source for the Executive Branch. For example, many of the IG's
    and the CFO's came from GAO. It is not that we don't want to
    contribute, we do. But we don't want to have a fundamental
    disadvantage to see our people leaving because of economics
    within the government.
        We need to undertake a strategic assessment of our human
    capital policies and programs to better align our performance
    and management reward systems with our strategic plan, to look
    at the issues of recruiting, succession planning, and training.
    Training is an area where we need additional targeted
    investment.
        Information technology is important, Mr. Chairman. As you
    know, we have worked with you on the Y2K issue. We want to make
    sure we are not going to have a problem on Y2K. As a result,
    there is a small targeted amount that we are asking for in
    conjunction with laptops in order to help deal with that
    situation.
        Then last, but not least, are work processes. With regard
    to work processes, every 5 years I believe any organization
    needs to take a hard look at its work processes to reengineer
    them, to try to achieve a better balance between quality,
    economy, efficiency, and timeliness.
        We need to do that, in part to try to get that 4 percent
    self-initiated work up to a more reasonable level of about 15
    percent. But, in part, quite frankly, it is to improve our
    timeliness and responsiveness.
        There is one last thing, Mr. Chairman, which is travel.
        More and more of our work is requiring us to go overseas:
    the World Bank, IMF, nuclear activities in Russia--just to give
    you three examples. We need some supplementation to be able to
    meet the desires and needs of the Congress to address these
    issues and the changing global environment.

                               prepared statement

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, that concludes my prepared
    remarks and I would be most pleased to answer any questions
    that you might have.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of David M. Walker
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a great
    pleasure for me to appear before you today as the Comptroller General
    of the United States. I am delighted and honored to be a member of the
    General Accounting Office (GAO) team.
        GAO has consistently been viewed as one of the most respected
    agencies in the federal government. It provides the Congress and the
    American people with timely, accurate, clear, candid, and useful
    information on current, emerging, and longer-range government
    operational and program issues. GAO is a multi-disciplinary,
    professional service organization that helps the Congress fulfill its
    oversight responsibilities. Compared to private sector professional
    service organizations, GAO's work is more diverse, more complex, and
    more important, because we are doing the people's work. In addition,
    while many organizations may assert their ability to do some of the
    audit evaluation and analytical work that GAO does, they cannot come
    close to the level of independence, diversity of skills or years of
    institutional knowledge of GAO. In fact, GAO is a brand name that is
    recognized and valued not only in the United States but also around the
    world.
            gao: committed to accountability, integrity, reliability
        GAO is dedicated to ``good government'' through its commitment to
    three core values: accountability, integrity, and reliability. These
    core values describe what we do, how we do it, and how we want it to be
    received.
        Accountability describes the nature of GAO's work. GAO helps the
    Congress oversee federal programs and operations to assure
    accountability to the American people. GAO's evaluators, auditors,
    lawyers, economists, public policy analysts, information technology
    specialists, and other multi-disciplinary professionals seek to enhance
    the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and credibility of the federal
    government, both in fact and in the eyes of the American public. GAO
    accomplishes its mission through a variety of activities that include
    financial audits, program reviews, investigations, legal support, and
    policy and program analyses.
        Integrity describes the high standards that GAO sets for itself in
    the conduct of its work. GAO takes a professional, objective, fact-
    based, non-partisan, non-ideological, fair, and balanced approach to
    all of its activities. Integrity is the foundation of reputation, and
    GAO's approach to its work assures both.
        Reliability describes GAO's goal for how its work is viewed by the
    Congress and the American public. GAO produces high quality reports,
    testimony, briefings, legal opinions, and other products and services
    that are timely, accurate, useful, clear, and candid.
                                 goals for gao
        I have three primary goals for GAO. First, I believe that GAO
    should be a world-class organization, one that leads by example. In
    every major operational area, from strategic planning to financial
    affairs, information technology, human capital practices, and client
    service, GAO should be the federal government's model for best
    practices. We are the agency that reviews others. As a result, we must
    lead by example. Second, I believe that GAO is fundamentally about
    ``good government,'' and that GAO should play a major role in helping
    to continuously improve the economy, efficiency, effectiveness,
    accountability, and integrity of the federal government. Third, I
    believe that what Americans think of their government and of their
    public servants is important, and that one goal of GAO's activities
    should be to improve the public's respect for and confidence in their
    government.
             gao today: service to the congress and american people
        GAO provides an invaluable service to the Congress and the American
    people. It makes significant contributions to congressional oversight
    and decision making. As illustrated below, over the past 7 years, the
    percentage of GAO's audit work conducted at the direction of the
    Congress has increased.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.003

        In fiscal year 1992, about 82 percent of GAO's audit work was
    conducted for a congressional committee, member of the Congress, or
    legislative mandate; the comparable figure in fiscal year 1998 was 96
    percent. Of particular note during this period is the almost three-fold
    increase in audit time spent on congressionally mandated reviews.
    Having such a large proportion of GAO's work congressionally directed,
    however, limits our flexibility in initiating program reviews under
    GAO's basic legislative authority. Much of this work is frequently
    requested by congressional committees having jurisdiction over the
    issues under review. These self-initiated reviews have contributed
    significantly to helping the Congress identify and address important
    emerging and longer-term national issues. For example, in 1990, GAO
    began work on its biennial ``High Risk'' series that has helped shed
    light and focus attention on problems related to government operations
    at greatest risk of fraud, abuse, waste and mismanagement and the
    billions of dollars that are at stake. GAO also fulfills other
    important functions, such as issuing government auditing and financial
    management standards for all levels of government entities and legal
    decisions on matters involving government revenues and expenditures.
        As I stated previously, GAO's work must be, among other things,
    non-partisan and non-ideological. As illustrated in the following
    graphic, GAO has continuously honored the requests of the majority and
    minority parties of the Congress over this 7-year period, regardless of
    who was in power. The American people will decide who the majority and
    minority parties are, but we must serve both. At the same time, the
    majority party, whichever party that is, will obviously command greater
    resources from GAO, since with majority status comes the responsibility
    for setting the legislative agenda. At the same time, the minority
    party, whichever party that is, must have access to some GAO resources.
    In addition, we hope to encourage more bipartisan and bicameral
    requests on issues of mutual interest and concern.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.004

    Return on Investment
        GAO provides significant financial benefits in return for the
    dollars that the Congress and the American people invest in it. In
    fiscal year 1998, for every dollar invested in GAO, the American people
    received a financial benefit of $58. For example, the Congress
    rescinded $3.65 billion in funding for assisted housing programs as a
    result of GAO studies showing that large project reserves for Section 8
    housing far exceeded needs. As illustrated in the following table, the
    return on the investment in GAO has averaged over $20 billion over the
    last 7-year period.

          FINANCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN GAO (FISCAL YEAR 1992-1998)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Financial
                                                 Benefits      Benefits per
                   Fiscal year                  (Dollars in       Dollar
                                                 millions)     Appropriated
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1992....................................         $36,191             $82
    1993....................................          14,529              33
    1994....................................          19,456              45
    1995....................................          15,831              36
    1996....................................          17,265              46
    1997....................................          20,935              63
    1998....................................          19,716              58
                                             -------------------------------
          Average...........................          20,560              52
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition to these financial benefits, GAO's work resulted in or
    contributed to numerous improvements in the efficiency and
    effectiveness of government operations and services, thereby enhancing
    taxpayers' confidence and trust in their government. For example, to
    help federal agencies mitigate Year 2000 risks--an issue that has been
    of particular interest to you, Mr. Chairman--in 1998, GAO produced
    guides on business continuity and contingency planning and on testing.
    The executive branch, the private sector, and other governments both in
    the U.S. and around the world are using these guides, and many of GAO's
    recommendations on Y2K issues have been adopted.
             opportunities to enhance gao services to the congress
        In the short time that I have been in office, I have discovered
    that GAO has done a lot of things right over the past years. But I also
    believe in continuous improvement and in leading by example. Based on
    information gathered during my nomination and confirmation process,
    meetings with congressional members and GAO's senior management team,
    and visits to GAO headquarters and field offices, I have identified a
    number of areas in which I believe that GAO can strengthen its services
    to the Congress and the American people. Let me share with you some of
    my preliminary observations and how I plan to go about addressing them.
    Actions Initiated Thus Far
        During this fiscal year, I am taking a number of actions to enhance
    GAO's operations and services to the Congress. I have already begun to
    implement a new strategic planning process, which will be completed
    before the end of the year, if not sooner. We will be taking a broader,
    thematic look at the issues facing the government and the nation, while
    employing a multi-dimensional matrix management approach for addressing
    these issues. My goal is to take advantage of GAO's strength as a
    multi-disciplinary professional services organization and build a body
    of work to help the Congress deal with these emerging issues in a
    timely fashion, before they become crises.
        I am also taking steps to enhance GAO's interface with its client--
    the Congress. GAO must make sure it has clearly defined, transparent,
    and consistent guidelines governing our relations with the Congress, no
    matter which party is the majority and which is the minority. By the
    end of this year, I also plan to have a program in place for gauging,
    through direct contact with congressional leaders and members, the
    level of satisfaction with GAO's products and services. I personally
    will meet at least annually with the top congressional leaders, and
    other top GAO executives will meet with key committee leaders.
        Last, I also am instituting a matrix management approach to how GAO
    does its work. Matrix management means taking an integrated approach to
    mission accomplishment, transcending the boundaries among
    organizational components and functions, so that the capacity of the
    whole will exceed that of its parts. The issues with which the Congress
    must contend are often multidimensional and cross-cutting, and the
    questions coming GAO's way will be increasingly diverse, complex, and
    demanding. Matrix management is a key to helping the Congress find
    integrated solutions to the complex issues facing the nation.
    Importantly, GAO is a major asset to the Congress in this regard, since
    it is one of the most, if not the most, diverse and experienced
    professional services firm on earth. In addition, all GAO professionals
    are dedicated public servants who put the interests of the Congress,
    the nation, and the American people ahead of their own personal
    interests.
    Longer-Term Actions
        Because of the important role that it has in government, GAO needs
    to be a strong, well-managed organization that sets the standard for
    ``good government'' and leads by example. However, as a result of
    actions taken to achieve its recent downsizing, GAO is facing several
    immediate human capital, technology, and work process challenges that
    must be addressed. At the same time, each of these areas needs an in-
    depth study to determine the best course of action over the longer-term
    before any major changes or new investments are made. After all, we
    must make sure that we are getting the most from our current resource
    allocation before we ask for more.
        GAO's past 7 years.--In 1992, GAO began its downsizing efforts with
    the implementation of a hiring freeze. This was soon followed by a
    1995, congressionally mandated, 25-percent nominal funding reduction
    over 2 years. This funding reduction, however, did not take into
    account uncontrollable inflation and mandatory pay increases, and
    separation costs for staff leaving GAO service. As a result, GAO had to
    take dramatic actions to achieve the mandated funding reduction in such
    a short time period, which ultimately resulted in a much larger
    reduction in staff than contemplated. It instituted a reduction-in-
    force; closed regional offices; imposed a 5-year hiring freeze;
    eliminated performance rewards; curtailed technology investments; and
    reduced travel, training, supplies, and other support costs to achieve
    the overall mandated reduction in spending. GAO is now facing a number
    of critical human capital, information technology, and work process
    challenges that it needs to address.
        GAO is a much smaller organization today than it was in 1992.
    During the 7-year downsizing period, GAO's full-time equivalent (FTE)
    staffing level was reduced by 39 percent. As illustrated below, GAO had
    a staffing level of 5,325 FTE's in fiscal year 1992. By fiscal year
    1998, its staffing level was reduced to 3,245 FTE's.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.005

        During its downsizing, GAO reduced the number of its field offices
    from 30 in fiscal year 1992 to 16 locations today. This reduction
    included closing 4 major field offices, 8 sublocations, and 2 overseas
    offices, as illustrated in the following graphic.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.006

        While GAO has recently begun taking steps toward reinvigorating its
    organization and workforce following the downsizing period, I believe a
    number of things need to be addressed to make GAO as strong as it needs
    to be to effectively and efficiently fulfill its mission and serve the
    needs of the Congress and the American people. The following represent
    some of the key human capital, technology, and work process issues that
    GAO faces today.
        Human capital issues.--Human capital is GAO's most important asset.
    As illustrated in the following graphic, over 80 percent of its
    resources are devoted to its workforce in the form of compensation,
    benefits, rewards, and training. As outlined below, a number of GAO's
    human capital programs have been detrimentally affected by its past
    downsizing. A top priority of my tenure at GAO, as well as an area of
    review for GAO in the rest of government, will be human capital issues.
    No organization can maximize its economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
    without assuring the appropriateness and effectiveness of its human
    capital (people) strategies. This is especially true in the case of
    professional service organizations.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.007

        As illustrated in the following graphic, GAO's hiring freeze lasted
    5 years before it was completely lifted at the beginning of fiscal year
    1998. Until 1998, its separations far exceeded its new hires.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.008

        The 5-year hiring freeze has had several significant effects on
    GAO's workforce composition and its ability to recruit and retain high
    caliber, skilled staff. First, as illustrated in the following graphic,
    GAO's median age increased from 41 in fiscal year 1992 to 47 today.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.009

        As a consequence, the percentage of GAO staff eligible for
    retirement is also steadily increasing. About 33 percent of GAO's
    current staff will be eligible for retirement by the end of fiscal year
    2004. This represents a four-fold increase from today and poses a major
    challenge for the agency. As illustrated in the following graphic,
    almost 60 percent of GAO's current SES and more than one-third of its
    current evaluator and related staff will reach retirement age by the
    year 2004. This also represents an approximate four-fold increase from
    current eligibility levels.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.010

        In addition to these workforce-aging issues, GAO's compensation
    package is not on a level comparable to that of the executive branch.
    To help achieve its mandated funding reduction, GAO eliminated its
    performance rewards and recognition programs in fiscal year 1993. As a
    result, GAO has been on an uneven playing field with the executive
    branch in its ability to recruit and retain high caliber and skilled
    staff. Last year, GAO lost more than 50 experienced staff to other
    federal agencies, 20 percent of who were management. GAO also has been
    losing staff to the private sector, such as CPA and other professional
    firms. GAO recently implemented a new performance awards program in
    fiscal year 1998. However, this program is only modestly funded, and we
    need to quickly return to a level playing field with the executive
    branch.
        Training is another key issue that GAO and its staff have been
    facing. As illustrated in the following graphic, the amount of
    resources devoted to external training for GAO's staff has declined
    over the past 7 years. While GAO also conducts internal training
    courses, due to the diversity of the skills, knowledge, and technology
    needed by our workforce, we must supplement this internal training with
    selected external technical and specialty training. This is
    particularly important for individuals who need to maintain
    professional certifications in their chosen field.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.011

        World-class professional service organizations similar to GAO's
    multi-discipline workforce invest nearly 6 percent of their budgets in
    training staff. When staff time and other overhead costs for training
    are included, GAO's total investment in training its staff was less
    than 4 percent in fiscal year 1998. For GAO to continue providing
    timely and high quality service to the Congress, it needs to conduct a
    comprehensive reassessment of its workforce skills and invest greater
    resources in training its staff. One specific area in which GAO needs
    to increase staff training is the use of the new technology and
    software application packages that are being implemented throughout the
    organization.
        Technology issues.--GAO is on target for ensuring that its systems
    are Year 2000 compliant. As of December 31, 1998, GAO had completed 97
    percent of the renovation--conversion, replacement, or retirement--
    phase of its 28 mission critical systems. GAO expects to complete the
    renovations and validations of these systems by the end of March 1999.
    GAO's recent upgrade of its desktop and network hardware and software
    platforms ensures that these systems are Y2K compliant as well.
        As illustrated in the following graphic, from fiscal years 1992 to
    1995, GAO made major technology investments to improve the efficiency
    and effectiveness of its mission-related operations. However, beginning
    in fiscal year 1996, GAO had to significantly reduce these investments
    to help achieve the 1995 mandated funding reduction.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.012

        Additional resources are now needed to address some immediate and
    continuing critical information technology needs. One short-term
    priority will be to replace non-Y2K compliant laptop computers and
    software packages that are no longer vendor-supported. In addition, the
    agency needs to embark on a comprehensive review of its overall
    information technology strategy, with an eye toward striking a balance
    between wants, needs, and affordability.
        Work Processes.--Over the past several years, GAO made substantial
    changes to its work processes and significantly improved the way it
    conducts its work. As a result, the timeliness and average costs of its
    reviews have improved. However, GAO must be open to continuous
    improvement to strike an appropriate balance between timeliness and
    quality and other factors in light of constrained resources and reduced
    flexibility. I believe that a comprehensive reassessment of such
    processes should be conducted every 3 to 5 years, with other
    enhancements being made continuously. Thus, a comprehensive review is
    planned after GAO's strategic planning process is completed.
                        fiscal year 2000 budget request
        Let me move on to the specifics of GAO's fiscal year 2000 budget
    request for $388,948,000. I am committed to making GAO as economical,
    efficient, and effective in its operations as possible. GAO needs to
    take a long-term look at what it needs to maintain its effectiveness in
    an environment of scarce resources. With your support, I will conduct a
    comprehensive review of GAO's needs and resources over the next year.
        In the meantime, for fiscal year 2000, I am not seeking additional
    staff above our fiscal year 1999 funded level of 3,275 FTE's or funding
    for any major new initiatives. I am requesting funds to permit GAO to
    maintain its current operations, while adding a few modest increases to
    address several critical existing programs that have not been
    adequately funded over the past few years.
        The funding level increase I am requesting provides for the
    following:
        Uncontrollable Mandatory Costs.--$24,874,000 is needed to cover
    uncontrollable mandatory costs. Of this amount, $17,589,000 is needed
    to cover mandatory pay and benefits increases resulting primarily from
    federal cost-of-living and locality pay adjustments, and increased
    participation in the FERS retirement system. In addition, $7,285,000 is
    being requested to offset uncontrollable reductions in GAO's fiscal
    year 1999 appropriation base. This amount consists of $6,685,000 that
    was transferred to GAO in fiscal year 1998 to meet fiscal year 1999
    needs, which will not be available in fiscal year 2000, and $600,000
    for anticipated declines in reimbursements for GAO audits of government
    corporations.
        Uncontrollable Costs for Inflation.--$1,081,000 is requested to
    cover uncontrollable price-level increases in transportation, lodging,
    printing, supplies, contracts, and other essential mission support
    services, based on OMB's 2-percent inflation index.
        Critical Needs.--To help GAO get back on track following its
    downsizing, $6,825,000 is requested for several critical human capital,
    work process reengineering, travel, and information technology needs.
    Additional details about each of these follow.
      --Human capital.--$2,500,000 is being requested to permit GAO to
            administer its performance awards for both SES and non-SES
            staff at a level comparable to that of the executive branch to
            help ensure our ability to attract and retain top quality staff
            with specialized skills. GAO also is requesting $750,000 to
            increase training for its staff to maximize their use of new
            technology and software application packages that are being
            implemented. In addition, during the upcoming year, we plan to
            begin conducting a comprehensive review of our human capital
            policies, practices, utilization, and needs. It is expected
            that this study will identify some important new initiatives,
            and $500,000 is being requested to provide contract and other
            support for the study and to develop the initiatives.
      --Work process reengineering.--$500,000 is being requested to
            reengineer GAO's work processes to increase its responsiveness
            to and interface with the Congress and enhance the quality,
            timeliness, efficiency, and usefulness of its products and
            services.
      --Travel.--$875,000 is being requested to meet increased demands for
            travel, particularly foreign travel, that is necessary as a
            result of recent congressionally mandated reviews and overseas
            office closures during GAO's downsizing. These mandates include
            reviews of such issues as the International Monetary Fund,
            international Y2K readiness, nuclear weapon arsenals, and war
            zone reviews in the Balkans and Middle East.
      --Information technology.--$1.7 million is being requested to support
            several critical information technology needs. Of this amount,
            $1 million is needed to fund essential fiscal year 2000 needs,
            including replacing non-Y2K compliant laptop computers and
            printers, and upgrading outdated system software that is no
            longer vendor-supported. Also, $200,000 is needed to develop
            and implement an information technology disaster recovery
            process. Similar to its human capital study, GAO also plans to
            conduct a comprehensive review of its information technology
            during the next year. Thus, $500,000 is requested to provide
            contractor and other needed support to conduct this
            comprehensive review and begin developing initiatives that the
            review will identify.
                               concluding remarks
        Former Comptroller General Charles A. Bowsher and Acting
    Comptroller General James F. Hinchman did an exceptional job in leading
    and steering GAO through several difficult years. As I have stated
    previously, I have inherited one of the best agencies in the federal
    government. At the same time, there is always room for improvement, and
    improvement must be continuous in these challenging times.
        GAO needs to lead by example and maximize its capacity in an
    environment of limited resources. To accomplish this objective, GAO
    needs to make several targeted and strategic investments in human
    capital (e.g., training, performance measurement and rewards systems)
    and information technology to help its employees ``work smarter.'' The
    dollars that I am seeking will help GAO begin addressing some of these
    critical needs and remain competitive in recruiting and retaining high
    caliber and skilled staff. In addition, these funds will help GAO gain
    a better understanding of its human capital, work processes, and
    technology needs and identify the best and most economical and
    effective course of action to pursue to address them in the years
    ahead.
        GAO needs the dollars that I am requesting to effectively
    transition into the 21st century and to continue providing the valuable
    service that we have so traditionally provided the Congress and the
    American people. The actions taken to achieve the mandated spending
    reductions have left little flexibility in our budget to make the
    needed enhancements that I believe are critical to maintaining GAO as a
    strong, effective, and viable operation into the next century. I
    respectfully request your support of our fiscal year 2000 budget
    request.
        This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions the Members of the Subcommittee may have.

                                 Travel request

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        As I look over at the list of questions that we prepared, I
    think you covered virtually all of them in your opening
    statement. So I will turn to Senator Feinstein while I look for
    something else. [Laughter.]
        Senator Feinstein. You know, Mr. Chairman, when I was mayor
    and I did the budget every year, I would always go immediately
    to the department's travel budget because it always was sort of
    interesting to see. This is the first time since I have been
    Ranking on this committee that I see travel at $875,000.
        Mr. Walker. Do you mean as far as the request? Is that what
    you are saying?
        Senator Feinstein. Yes.
        Why is it so high?
        Mr. Walker. The reason it is so high is, number one, we
    have reduced the number of field offices that we have from 40
    to 16. We have closed all of our offices overseas as part of
    the downsizing. We used to have an office in Frankfurt to be
    able to deal with European issues. We used to have an office in
    Hawaii to deal with Asian issues. Those have all been closed.
    So, as a result, we have to travel more just to be able to
    cover the same types of issues that we otherwise would have.
        Second, the nature of the requests, Senator, that we have
    been receiving in recent years have really been more
    international in scope, for example what is going on in Bosnia,
    changes in Europe, the financial crisis in Asia, World Bank and
    IMF activities among other things. What about the mass transit
    systems in Europe and whether they might serve as a model for
    what we might need to look at here?
        So, as a result, to meet the needs of the Congress and,
    given our reduced number of offices and locations, we have to
    travel more.
        Senator Feinstein. Just for fun, can I get a breakdown of
    these travel plans, please, as well as last year's?
        Mr. Walker. Absolutely, Senator. We will work with you on
    how much detail you are looking for.
        Senator Feinstein. Just how it was spent.
        Mr. Walker. Sure, we would be happy to do that.
        Senator Feinstein. And how you plan on spending this.
        Mr. Walker. Sure.
        [The information follows:]

        Travel is an essential element of GAO's emphasis on the
    quality of its work. Audit and evaluation work must be
    sufficiently representative in scope and in the number and type
    of locations covered to assure the validity of GAO's
    conclusions and recommendations. For these reasons, time must
    be spent on-site to observe first-hand where federal dollars
    are being spent throughout the United States and in foreign
    locations.
        The additional funds requested for fiscal year 2000 are
    needed to cover increased travel demands, particularly overseas
    assignments, resulting from Congressional requests, such as
    reviews of the International Monetary Fund, international Year
    2000 readiness, the Bosnia conflict, emerging foreign markets,
    and safeguarding nuclear weapons arsenals. These mandates
    require a higher level of overseas travel than what GAO has
    normally experienced. Also, our travel requirements have
    increased in recent years due to the closure of 14 field and
    overseas offices since fiscal year 1992.
        In fiscal year 1998, 90 percent of our travel funds were
    used for mission essential travel. Travel for executive
    direction and support, training, and other administrative
    activities accounted for the remaining funds. About 5 percent
    of the trips taken by audit and evaluation staff were to
    overseas locations. On average, evaluators spent almost 18 days
    in travel status at an average per capita cost of about $3,200.
        Since fiscal year 1992 there has been a steady decline in
    both the time and amount spent on travel. In fiscal year 1992,
    travel funds represented about 5 percent of GAO's
    appropriation, compared to 3 percent since fiscal year 1998.
    However, in 1992 GAO began its downsizing efforts with the
    implementation of a hiring freeze. The hiring freeze was soon
    followed by a 1995, congressionally mandated, 25-percent
    nominal funding reduction over 2 years. This funding reduction
    necessitated a reduction-in-force, closure of regional and
    overseas offices, and reductions in available travel funds.
    Travel funds used in fiscal 1998 are less than half the amount
    spent in fiscal year 1992.
        GAO's downsizing, combined with annual increases in airline
    fares and per diem rates, necessitated changes in our business
    practices. Therefore, as early as fiscal year 1992 GAO began
    implementing a number of practices to reduce travel costs and
    maximize funds available for mission essential travel.
    Technology enhancements through the GAO-wide network using a
    data collection and analysis application, electronic mail, and
    videoconferencing have helped GAO improve data and
    communications exchanges, and reduce travel requirements
    between headquarters and field locations.

                             Offsetting collections

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        I do have one question that was not covered.
        The income from receipts for audit work performed by GAO
    for other agencies has been consistently declining every year.
    I assume this is because the agencies use their IG's.
        Mr. Walker. Or external auditors.
        Senator Bennett. Or external auditors, contracted with
    private sector firms.
        Now you are projecting an additional decrease of $600,000
    in receipts and you are asking Congress to make that up.
        There is a little bit of a disconnect there. If, in fact,
    you are not doing the work and that is why you are not getting
    the receipts, why should we pay for it?
        Mr. Walker. Senator, I appreciate your comment. I think the
    way that I would characterize it is this. We have the people.
    We have to pay the people. We already have backlogs with regard
    to our work. We are already down to only 4 percent in
    discretionary jobs. Therefore, we have more than enough work
    for these people to do. And yet, we are going to lose the
    revenues that otherwise we were getting.
        So, we would like to keep them gainfully employed, meeting
    the needs of the Congress. But we have to be able to pay them
    to do that.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Bennett. OK.
        I have nothing further. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Feinstein.
        Senator Bennett. We welcome you to the committee for your
    first appearance and look forward to seeing you regularly.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                         Additional Committee Questions
        Question. During the Committee's last quarterly briefing, GAO had 2
    additional mission-critical systems that need to be renovated, 9
    systems which remain to be validated, and test and contingency plans
    which need to be finalized.
        Will GAO meet the March 31 executive branch deadline and have the
    remaining 2 systems renovated?
        Have test and contingency plans been finalized?
        Answer. All mission-critical systems requiring remediation were
    renovated, validated, and implemented by March 31, 1999. GAO has
    obtained either vendor certification of Year 2000 compliance or
    developed test plans for all mission-critical systems. In addition, as
    of March 31, all interfaces between mission-critical systems were
    tested.
        GAO also has developed plans to perform ``end-to-end'' testing of
    all systems that it directly controls and will require that ``end-to-
    end'' testing be performed by the computer centers that operate its
    administrative systems. GAO has already tested the movement of data
    among its mission-critical administrative systems. In addition, we have
    participated with NFC in testing the Payroll/Personnel system, and are
    working with NFC to test the interface from the Payroll/Personnel
    system into the Financial Management System.
        GAO is well along in the process of developing both business
    continuity and contingency plans. We have analyzed our core business
    processes, identified their supporting systems, and are now developing
    the specific procedures that would allow staff to operate outside of
    the headquarters building. In addition, we are developing comprehensive
    ``Zero Day'' plans to focus on the critical 5-day period of the century
    rollover--December 30, 1999 to January 3, 2000--to ensure that January
    3 is an uneventful, business-as-usual day. The contingency plans for
    most systems will be completed by the summer. Our contingency plans
    involve changes in our operating procedures, are largely manual, and
    are not dependent on new technology.
        Question. The income from receipts for audit work performed by GAO
    for other agencies has been consistently declining every year as more
    agencies use their Office of Inspector General (OIG) or contract with
    private sector firms for their audits. This year GAO projects an
    additional reduction of $600,000 in receipts and asks for Congress to
    make up that difference in appropriated funds.
        Have you looked into why agencies are no longer using GAO for their
    audit work?
        Shouldn't there be a decrease in the FTE level if the demand for
    these services is reduced?
        Answer. The reduction in corporate audit receipts from $2 million
    in fiscal year 1999 to $1.4 million in fiscal year 2000 is attributable
    to the audit of FDIC's financial statements. GAO has been working with
    the FDIC OIG to further increase OIG involvement in the audits of
    FDIC's financial statements. This involvement began with the 1996
    audits as a long-term training effort to progressively increase the
    level of OIG responsibility in the financial audits so that the OIG
    would be qualified and experienced to take over the audits if the
    opportunity occurs. GAO has statutory responsibility to perform the
    annual financial audits under the provisions of Section 17(d) of the
    Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1827(d)).
        Although GAO's FTE's for performing the reimbursable audit at FDIC
    have declined, other areas within GAO are experiencing increasing
    demands for staff resources. As noted in our response to question 3,
    resource demands for congressional mandates and requests continue to
    increase.
        Question. In your testimony you indicate that the percentage of
    GAO's audit work conducted at the direction of Congress has increased
    from 82 percent in 1992 to 96 percent in 1998.
        Do you have any rationale for that increase?
        What is the significance of those figures?
        Answer. In both fiscal years 1992 and 1998, requests from
    committees and individual members were about 74 percent of audit
    resources used. Resources spent on congressional mandates, however,
    increased from 8 percent in fiscal year 1992 to 22 percent in fiscal
    year 1998. This increase, coupled with the steady volume of
    congressional requests, limits GAO's flexibility to conduct self-
    initiated reviews.
        Question. GAO has been making large investments in technology. Last
    year GAO estimated that by the end of fiscal year 1998, 80 percent of
    staff IT stations would be upgraded.
        How much have you spent on IT since fiscal year 1996?
        What percentage of staff remain to be upgraded?
        Answer. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, GAO significantly
    curtailed IT operating costs and deferred most technology investments.
    Because of the constrained budget environment during this period, GAO's
    principal focus in information resources and technology had been to
    upgrade existing systems to ensure they remain current and continue to
    operate in the year 2000. In fiscal years 1996 through 1998, GAO spent
    $10.4 million on IT investments, including upgrades to network
    components such as servers, workstations, and other peripheral
    equipment, Windows95 operating system, MSOffice Suites application
    software, and the telecommunications network. Some of these
    investments, such as network equipment and workstations, were obtained
    under lease-to-purchase agreements. These improvements have provided
    GAO with a fully integrated set of applications that has reduced
    document creation time, streamlined document production, and ensured
    Year 2000 compliance. As of January 1999, all staff workstations have
    been upgraded.
        Question. You have indicated an increase in the volume of work
    requested by Congress.
        How many requests did you receive in fiscal year 1998 from
    Committee Chairmen or Ranking Members?
        How many requests did you receive from Members of Congress?
        Were there any requests that you were not able to satisfy? How
    many?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998, GAO received 1,531 requests from the
    Congress for audit work. The sources of these requests were as follows:
    1,081 requests (71 percent) were initiated by Committee Chairmen or
    Ranking Members; 334 requests (22 percent) were initiated by Members;
    101 requests (7 percent) were new mandates contained in public laws or
    committee reports; as well as 15 requests (less than 1 percent) from a
    member of the congressional leadership, officer of Congress, or
    congressional task force.
        Decisions to undertake individual assignments are influenced
    heavily by the source of the request. The Legislative Reorganization
    Act of 1970, as codified in 31 U.S.C. 717, requires the Comptroller
    General to respond to legislative mandates and committee requests. As a
    matter of policy, we interpret committee requests to include requests
    from both committee Chairs or Ranking Minority Members. Requests from
    individual Members are undertaken to the extent possible.
        While scope and timing adjustments are frequently negotiated with
    requesters, GAO is generally able to satisfy the needs of most
    congressional requests. Issue area managers with a significant backlog
    of requests will often work with congressional staff to help prioritize
    the requests, respond to the earliest doable requests, might postpone a
    specialized request to await the availability of staff with the
    requisite expertise, or might postpone a small non-urgent request for a
    more important time-critical request. In addition, some of the requests
    have a future due date or require another event before GAO can begin
    work. Currently, there are about 400 requests for GAO assistance where
    we have not initiated work.
        GAO is taking a number of actions to enhance its operations and
    services to and interface with its client--the Congress. GAO must make
    sure it has clearly defined, transparent, and consistent guidelines
    governing our relations with the Congress, no matter which party is the
    majority and which is the minority. By the end of this year, we plan to
    have a program in place for gauging, through direct contact with
    congressional leaders and members, the level of satisfaction with GAO's
    products and services. The Comptroller General will personally meet at
    least annually with top congressional leaders, and other top GAO
    executives will meet with key committee leadership.
                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, PUBLIC PRINTER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            ROBERT T. MANSKER, DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER
            FRANCIS J. BUCKLEY, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
            WILLIAM GUY, BUDGET DIRECTOR

                               welcoming remarks

        Senator Bennett. Our next witness is Michael DiMario, the
    Public Printer.
        Good morning, sir.
        Mr. DiMario. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. The Government Printing Office requests a
    total of $128.5 million for Congressional printing and binding,
    the Superintendent of Documents, and the Revolving Fund.
        It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. DiMario, that I
    will be listening very carefully to your comments about GPO's
    preparedness for the Y2K. GAO, from whom we have just heard,
    has expressed concern about your ability to be ready. You know
    my concern here.
        So I look forward to going into that in some detail.
        Senator Feinstein, do you have any comment?
        Senator Feinstein. No, I do not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Mr. DiMario, we welcome you.
        Please proceed.

                           Public Printer's statement

        Mr. DiMario. Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, I am pleased
    to be here this morning to present GPO's appropriations request
    for fiscal year 2000.
        With me on my left is Bob Mansker, the Deputy Public
    Printer. On my right is Francis Buckley, the Superintendent of
    Documents. Also with us is Bill Guy, GPO's Budget Officer, who
    is here behind me.
        In the interest of time, I will summarize my prepared
    statement which has been submitted for the record.
        Senator Bennett. It will appear in the record.
        Mr. DiMario. Thank you.
        For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting a total of $128.5
    million. The request includes $82.2 million for the
    Congressional Printing and Binding appropriation and $31.2
    million for the Superintendent of Documents programs.
        It also includes $15 million for GPO's Revolving Fund for
    extraordinary expenses associated with air conditioning
    replacement, elevator renovation, and ensuring Y2K compliance.
        Most of the new funds we are requesting for Congressional
    printing and binding, or $5.8 million, are to cover anticipated
    workload increases.
        After a period of reduced workload in the 105th Congress,
    we anticipate a return to workload levels more consistent with
    historical trends during the 106th Congress. A majority of the
    increase for the Superintendent of Documents, or $1.1 million,
    is for the Federal Depository Library Program planned
    electronic collection.
        Managing and expanding this collection is crucial to the
    objective of transitioning the Depository Library Program to a
    more electronic basis.
        The request of $15 million for the Revolving Fund includes
    $8.1 million for extraordinary expenses required to ensure Y2K
    compliance, $6 million for our air conditioning system, which
    is in critical need of replacement, and $900,000 for necessary
    elevator renovation.
        Without a direct appropriation, financing these unusual
    capital expenses through the Revolving Fund will require us to
    reimburse the fund through rate adjustments.
        Finally, we are requesting an increase in the statutory
    ceiling on employment of full time equivalents, or FTEs, to
    3,550. We have reduced employment levels by 33 percent over the
    past decade and by more than 25 percent since 1993.
        Our employment levels are now dangerously low. Overtime
    utilization has increased by 11 percent in the past year. Our
    ability to continue providing mission critical support to
    Congress is being jeopardized by continued attrition and
    reductions in our FTE ceiling.

                               prepared statement

        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks and I would
    be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Michael F. DiMario
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
    here to present the appropriations request of the Government Printing
    Office (GPO) for fiscal year 2000.
                    gpo's mission: keeping america informed
        A commitment to public access to Government information is deeply
    rooted in our system of Government. GPO is one of the most visible
    demonstrations of that commitment. For more than a century, our mission
    under the public printing and documents statutes of Title 44, U.S.
    Code, has been to fulfill the needs of the Federal Government for
    information products and to distribute those products to the public.
        Formerly, GPO's mission was accomplished through the production and
    procurement of traditional printing technologies. However, a generation
    ago we began migrating our processes to electronic technologies, and in
    1993 Congress amended Title 44 with the GPO Electronic Information
    Access Enhancement Act (Public Law 103-40), which requires us to
    disseminate Government information products online. This Act is the
    basis of GPO Access, our Internet information service.
        Today, GPO is dedicated to producing, procuring, and disseminating
    Government information products in a wide range of formats--print, CD-
    ROM, and online. In GPO the Government has a unique asset that combines
    a comprehensive range of conventional production and electronic
    processing, procurement facilitation, and multi-format dissemination
    capabilities to support the information life cycle needs of Congress,
    Federal agencies, and the public:
      --We provide print and electronic information products and services
            to Congress and Federal agencies through in-plant processes and
            the purchase of information products from the private sector.
            For Congress, we maintain a capability to fully support the
            information product needs of the legislative process, working
            in close cooperation with leadership offices, committees,
            Members, and staffs in each Chamber.
      --We disseminate Government information to the public in print and
            electronic formats through a low-priced sales program and a
            reimbursable program, and to Federal depository libraries
            nationwide where the information may be used by the public free
            of charge. We provide a number of ancillary dissemination
            services, including cataloging and indexing Government
            information products, distribution of Federal information under
            international exchange agreements, and distribution of Federal
            documents to recipients designated by law.
      --We disseminate a massive volume of information online via the
            Internet with GPO Access. Between 10 million and 15 million
            documents are retrieved by the public every month using this
            system. We strongly support the increased dissemination of
            Government information in electronic formats, and GPO Access
            today is one of the leading Federal sites on the Internet. Our
            home page, at www.access.gpo.gov, provides free public access
            to more than 70 Federal databases from all three branches of
            the Government, a growing number of agency Government
            Information Locator Service (GILS) sites, and associated
            locator and Pathway aids. The titles currently available on GPO
            Access include the recent report of the Senate Special
            Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, headed by
            Chairman Bennett, Investigating the Impact of the Year 2000
            Problem.
        Value of GPO Services.--GPO's value to Congress, Federal agencies,
    and the public is well established. Our programs reduce the need for
    duplicative production and procurement facilities throughout the
    Government. As multiple studies by the General Accounting Office, the
    Office of Technology Assessment, GPO's Inspector General, and others
    have shown, GPO achieves significant taxpayer savings through a
    centralized production and procurement system. Our dissemination
    programs represent the Government's most comprehensive and effective
    means for providing public access to Government information, which is
    increasingly valuable to all Americans in the Information Age.
        We provide all of our services in a non-partisan, service-oriented
    environment that emphasizes the primacy of the customer's requirements
    for timeliness, quality, security, and economy. We are dedicated to
    achieving the greatest access and equity in information dissemination
    through printed publications, CD-ROM, and online information
    technologies. Our electronic and traditional technologies
    simultaneously enable us to facilitate the re-engineering of
    information products to satisfy the Government's changing information
    requirements, and to preserve and protect public access to Government
    information for all of our citizens.
        Most importantly, GPO's skilled and dedicated employees are
    committed to serving Congress, Federal agencies, and the public. They
    demonstrated this once again during the production of the various
    publications associated with the report of independent counsel Kenneth
    Starr. These voluminous, high-profile publications were required by
    Congress under the very demanding circumstances of short turnaround
    time and tight security constraints. In each case, our employees were
    able to produce the documents within the required deadlines and provide
    public access in both print and electronic forms, all in record-
    breaking time, earning the praise of House Judiciary Committee Chairman
    Hyde. Under the close direction of the Appropriations Committees, we
    also produced the Omnibus Appropriations bill at the end of the 105th
    Congress under tight deadlines. GPO's performance demonstrated once
    again that our employees have the skills and the ability to provide for
    Congress's information needs under virtually any circumstance. They are
    indeed our greatest and most valuable asset.
        More than a century ago, Congress in its wisdom designed a system
    in GPO for keeping America informed. That system continues to serve a
    vital purpose today.
                    fiscal year 2000 appropriations request
        For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting a total of $128,459,000.
    The request includes $82,214,000 for the annual Congressional Printing
    and Binding Appropriation and $31,245,000 for the annual Salaries and
    Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents. Our request
    also includes $15,000,000 for GPO's revolving fund, to remain available
    until expended, for extraordinary expenses associated with the
    replacement of our air-conditioning systems, elevator renovation, and
    to ensure Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance in our computer systems. As our
    budget submission shows on pages I-2 and I-3, GPO's appropriations have
    remained relatively stable over the past decade while declining
    substantially in real purchasing power.
        The Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation is critical to
    the maintenance and operation of our in-plant capacity, which is
    structured to serve Congress's information product needs. This
    appropriation covers the costs of congressional printing such as the
    Congressional Record, bills, reports, hearings, documents, and other
    products. Each year, a substantial volume of this work is
    requisitioned. In fiscal year 1998, more than 1.3 billion copy pages of
    congressional products were produced at an average cost of about 5
    cents per page, inclusive of all prepress work, printing, binding, and
    delivery. This appropriation also covers database preparation work on
    congressional publications disseminated online via GPO Access.
        The majority of the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and
    Expenses Appropriation is for the Federal Depository Library Program
    (FDLP). While some of the funding for this program is for salaries and
    benefits, most is for printing and distributing publications (including
    publications in CD-ROM and online formats) to depository libraries.
    This appropriation also covers other statutory distribution
    responsibilities, such as cataloging and indexing and international
    exchange distribution of U.S. Government publications, and provides the
    majority of funding for the operation of GPO Access. GPO's other major
    distribution functions, the sales program and agency distribution
    services, are funded entirely by revenues earned and receive no
    appropriated funds.
                congressional printing and binding appropriation
        The items covered by our request of $82,214,000 for the
    Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriations are as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

                                                                   Estimated
            Category                                             Requirement

    Congressional Record (including the online Record, the Index, and
        the bound Record).............................................  22.1
    Committee hearings................................................  18.0
    Miscellaneous Printing and Binding (including letterheads,
        envelopes, blank paper, and other products)...................  13.9
    Bills, resolutions, amendments....................................   9.8
    Miscellaneous Publications (including the Congressional Directory,
        the U.S. Code, and serial sets)...............................   4.9
    Committee Reports.................................................   3.8
    Business and Committee Calendars..................................   2.5
    Documents.........................................................   2.4
    Details to Congress...............................................   2.0
    Committee Prints..................................................   1.7
    Document Envelopes and Franks.....................................   1.1
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................  82.2

        Part of the increase in our appropriations request over the current
    year is due to changes in product prices. Price increases are
    anticipated to increase our funding requirements by $1,899,000 over the
    current year base, due to the increased costs of employee compensation
    and benefits (based on existing wage contracts), utilities,
    maintenance, materials, and supplies. We are continuing to work to
    minimize the impact of these costs.
        The majority of the increase in our request, however, is due to
    projected workload, or volume, increases. An increase of $5,850,000
    over the current year base is required due to anticipated workload
    increases, based on historical trend data. After a period of reduced
    workload in the 105th Congress, we anticipate a return to workload
    levels more consistent with historical trends during the 106th
    Congress. Most of this increase ($4,366,000) is projected for the
    Congressional Record program, including the daily Record, the bound
    Record, and the Record index. Historical data indicates an increase in
    Record pages in a second session year. Other increases are projected
    for bills, resolutions, and amendments; committee reports,
    miscellaneous printing and binding, business and committee calendars,
    documents, and committee prints. Partially offsetting workload
    reductions are projected for miscellaneous publications (since the
    Congressional Directory is printed in a first session year), details to
    Congress, and hearings. (We have begun work on the Congressional
    Directory for the 106th Congress.) While these estimates are based on
    historical factors and represent our best estimates as to the projected
    workload for the first session of the 106th Congress, actual workload
    may vary.
        Legislative Information Systems.--We continue to participate with
    both the House and the Senate in the development of new legislative
    information systems that will expand the capability to create and
    utilize electronic information products in Congress and potentially
    reduce GPO's printing costs. One objective of these systems is the
    adoption of Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) to permit the
    submission of machine-readable keystrokes requiring less processing by
    GPO prior to final production. We are supporting initiatives in both
    Chambers to facilitate the sharing of information.
        Computer-to-Plate Technology.--We are acquiring state-of-the-art
    computer-to-plate (CTP) technology that will reduce costs, improve
    press-ready plate quality, and expedite the processing of prepress work
    on many congressional products, including the Congressional Record. The
    new systems are already in limited operation. CTP technology makes it
    possible to send electronic text and image files directly to automated
    platemaking devices, eliminating the need for film negatives and
    additional labor-intensive manual processes. We are constantly
    monitoring industry for other technological improvements that can be
    used in GPO's operations.
                      salaries and expenses appropriation
        The programs covered by our request of $31,245,000 for the Salaries
    and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents are as
    follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

                                                                   Estimated
            Program                                             Requirements

    Federal Depository Library Program................................  26.8
    Cataloging and Indexing Program...................................   3.3
    By-Law Distribution Program.......................................    .6
    International Exchange Program....................................    .5
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................  31.2

        Mandatory pay increases and price level changes represent $842,000
    of the requested increase of $1,981,000. Mandatory pay increases
    account for $358,000 of this amount. The majority of the increase,
    $484,000, reflects price level changes calculated at the assumed rate
    of inflation for the year, or 2.3 percent.
        FDLP Electronic Collection.--A total of $1,077,000 over the current
    year base is requested for workload changes, primarily for expenditures
    associated with managing the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP)
    electronic collection. The collection consists of electronic sources
    that are within the scope of the FDLP and with which GPO has various
    levels of involvement: (1) core congressional and regulatory products
    that reside permanently on GPO servers; (2) other remotely accessible
    products managed by either GPO or by other institutions with which GPO
    has established formal partnership agreements; (3) remotely accessible
    electronic Government information products that GPO identifies,
    describes, and links to, but which remain under the control of the
    originating agencies; and (4) tangible electronic Government
    information products distributed to Federal depository libraries. The
    collection also has defined responsibilities for life cycle management
    of electronic Government information products to ensure permanent
    availability, as well as responsibilities for assisting users in
    locating information resources.
        The collection already consists of over 140,000 electronic titles,
    including over 85,000 titles on GPO Access itself and almost 48,000
    additional titles at agency sites that we link to through our
    electronic locator services. We are beginning to work with agencies,
    depository libraries, and other partners to ensure permanent access to
    these products so they can continue to be used by the public well into
    the future. Projected expenditures associated with this plan include
    increased server space and connection capacity for agency originated
    files that GPO archives; data conversion and migratory costs to prevent
    technological obsolescence; software to improve searching capabilities;
    and software to manage data archiving for electronic collection titles.
    We also anticipate personnel costs associated with a collection manager
    and reimbursement to Production areas for collection support.
        An additional $62,000 increase is required to fund depreciation
    arising from asset acquisitions, including the establishment of a
    training center for online access to Government information, new
    software for the Monthly Catalog of Government Publications, upgrades
    to our automated depository distribution system, and other
    improvements.
        We are also requesting an increase in the statutory limitation on
    travel, from $150,000 to $175,000, due primarily to the increasing cost
    of travel. These funds cover travel by depository library inspectors to
    libraries around the Nation, travel by GPO staff to attend various
    library association conferences and meetings, travel of members of the
    Depository Library Council to Council meetings to serve in an advisory
    capacity to the Public Printer, and travel by GPO staff nationwide to
    provide training in the use of GPO Access.
        FDLP Transition.--The transition to a more electronic FDLP is
    continuing, as projected in Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a
    Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library
    Program (June 1996), as required by Congress in the Legislative
    Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The development of the FDLP
    electronic collection concept is an important element of that
    transition. Approximately 34 percent of all titles disseminated to
    depository libraries in fiscal year 1998 were in electronic format.
                                 revolving fund
        Fiscal Year 1998 Performance.--After a period of net losses in the
    early 1990's, GPO completed a second consecutive year of positive
    bottom line results in fiscal year 1998, generating net income of about
    $1,000,000 on total revenues of approximately $723,000,000. However,
    losses were sustained in our procurement and sales areas, and we are
    reviewing options to restore each of these programs to a sound
    financial basis. During the year, an audit of GPO's fiscal year 1997
    financial reports and systems was conducted by KPMG Peat Marwick, Inc.,
    under contract with the General Accounting Office. The audit resulted
    in a clean opinion, as have previous GPO financial audits. KPMG has
    recently completed an audit of GPO's finances for fiscal year 1998.
    This audit also resulted in a clean opinion on the financial
    statements.
        Infrastructure Costs.--Our appropriations request includes a
    request for $15,000,000 for the revolving fund, to be available until
    expended, to cover the cost of necessary improvements to GPO's
    infrastructure and systems. The request includes $8,100,000 for
    reimbursement of extraordinary expenses required to ensure Y2K
    compliance (including equipment repairs, replacement, testing, and
    contingency planning); $6,000,000 for our air conditioning system which
    is in critical need of replacement; and $900,000 for necessary elevator
    renovation. Without a direct appropriation, financing these
    extraordinary capital expenses through the revolving fund will require
    us to reimburse the fund through rate adjustments. As these costs are
    not related to the direct provision of printing and information product
    services, their impact on our rate structure will be detrimental to our
    ability to carry out our mission to provide cost-effective and
    economical products and services. The installation of our air
    conditioning system in 1974 was funded by a direct appropriation to the
    revolving fund, and we request that these extraordinary costs be funded
    similarly.
        FTE Level.--We are requesting an increase in the statutory ceiling
    on employment of full-time equivalents (FTE's) to 3,550, the level
    established for fiscal year 1998. GPO is now at its lowest employment
    point in this century. We have reduced employment levels by 33 percent
    over the past decade, and by more than 25 percent since 1993. Our
    employment levels are now dangerously low. Overtime utilization has
    increased by 11 percent in the past year. While we were able to perform
    the demands placed on us for production of the Starr report and Omnibus
    Appropriations bill materials, our ability to continue providing this
    level of service is being jeopardized by continued attrition and
    reductions in our FTE ceiling.
        Due to the age of our workforce, we need to replace essential
    skills. For example, GPO's prepress area is an area with potentially
    critical staff shortages. The prepress area is essential to Congress--
    it is where the Congressional Record, bills, reports, hearings, and all
    other documents essential to the legislative process are assembled for
    timely delivery both in print and electronic formats. Critical staffing
    shortages in these areas threaten GPO's ability to perform its mission.
    In addition, our expanding electronic mission requires an infusion of
    new technical skills that are not readily available in-house.
        Finally, we need additional staffing to fulfill the recommendations
    of the Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., management audit of GPO conducted
    last year at the request of Congress. The auditors said ``[GPO's]
    Production [Department] must take aggressive action to adequately
    recruit, train, and retain staff in critical skill areas;'' ``GPO's
    information systems security program has been undermined by staff
    reductions and budget cuts;'' GPO's Position Management Branch ``lacks
    effective resources;'' and that GPO's aging workforce ``leaves the
    agency at risk of instability.'' It is becoming increasingly evident
    that GPO must place more emphasis on maintaining a highly skilled
    workforce of sufficient size to fulfill the demands placed upon it and
    to guard against sacrificing the future of the agency as we seek cost
    savings today. A restoration of our FTE ceiling to 3,550 will provide
    us with the flexibility we need to make important additions to our
    workforce.
                       miscellaneous legislative changes
        We are proposing to change section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41
    U.S.C. 5) by striking out ``$25,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
    ``$100,000''. This would increase GPO's small purchase threshold
    consistent with the simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000 in
    operation for other Federal agencies. The change would have no material
    impact on our Printing Procurement Program, where we will continue to
    advertise procurement opportunities for jobs of all dollar values.
    However, it would help streamline the acquisition process we use to
    acquire materials and supplies for our use, including paper and
    equipment.
        As a technical correction, we are also proposing that the last
    sentence of section 5595(b) of Title 5 U.S.C., as added by section
    309(a)(2) the Fiscal Year Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, should
    be amended by striking ``(a)(1)(G)'' and inserting ``(a)(1)(C)''.
                         retirement incentive authority
        The Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1999, provides authority
    for a ``buyout'' retirement incentive program for GPO. The Act requires
    GPO to submit a plan to the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP), or any
    applicable successor committees, by January 15, 1999. We sent a letter
    to the Chairman of the JCP by that date, stating that GPO will not
    offer a retirement incentive at this time based on the services
    required of us and our already reduced workforce. However, the letter
    also stated that, should this situation change and a retirement
    incentive is required within the 3-year period authorized by the
    legislation--particularly to avoid or minimize the need for involuntary
    separations--we will develop the requisite plan for the approval of the
    JCP or any applicable successor committee.
                           status of y2k preparedness
        We have been reporting to the General Accounting Office (GAO),
    operating under the direction of Chairman Bennett, on the preparation
    of our computer systems for compliance with Y2K requirements. The
    software used in processing the Congressional Record was repaired,
    tested, and verified as Y2K compliant in February 1998. The hardware
    utilized for Record processing was tested and found to be Y2K
    compliant. A live system test of the transmission of Record data from
    the Office of the Secretary of the Senate was successfully conducted
    for Y2K-specific conditions.
        At this date, all 40 of our active mission-critical systems have
    been assessed. All 40 have been renovated. Thirty-five of the 40
    systems have been validated and implemented. These 35 systems include
    100 percent of the mission-critical systems used in producing
    congressional information products and services. Validation and
    implementation have yet to be completed on our new integrated
    processing system (sales of publications program), new general ledger
    package (financial), PROBE system (for reporting job costs), mainframe
    conversion (administrative and procurement systems), and automated
    depository distribution system (depository library program). A major
    concern remains the ongoing drain through attrition of information
    technology (IT) professionals from GPO who are assisting in the Y2K
    preparedness effort. In order to assure Y2K compliance, we are looking
    to acquire contracting services for independent validation and
    verification to supplement the stretched resources of our in-house IT
    areas.
               status report on management audit recommendations
        The conference report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Bill (H. Rpt. 105-734, p. 42) required GPO to submit an
    annual report, concurrent with the submission of the annual budget
    request, on the status of implementation actions on recommendations
    contained in the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report, ``Management Audit of
    the Government Printing Office'' (May 21, 1998). This report contained
    95 recommendations for action affecting 7 GPO areas: Overall (3);
    Marketing, Sales, and Distribution (27); Procured Printing Services
    (8); In-Plant Production (13); Human Resources (24); Financial
    Management (12); and Information Technology (8). Implementation action
    in the various affected GPO areas has been classified according to
    ``action planned,'' ``action ongoing,'' ``action completed,'' ``action
    deferred,'' ``action taken as needed,'' or ``no action currently
    planned.''
        Of the 95 recommendations, action is being taken in a total of 71
    cases: action is either planned (8 cases), ongoing (60 cases), or
    completed (3 cases). This means that GPO either plans to act, is
    currently acting, or has acted affirmatively on approximately 75
    percent of the recommendations contained in the Booz-Allen & Hamilton,
    Inc., final report. These include recommendations on planning, program
    modernization, ensuring financial stability, promoting intra-agency
    communications, and improving information technology capabilities as
    well as ensuring preparedness for Y2K. Many of the recommendations for
    which action is ``ongoing'' are essentially open-ended and would not be
    expected to reach a formal ``completion'' stage.
        On the remaining recommendations, action has been deferred in 3
    cases; in 15 cases action will be taken as necessary; and in 7 cases no
    action is currently planned (on one recommendation under Sales,
    Marketing, and Distribution there have been two actions). The
    recommendations for which no action is currently planned include those
    to which we objected in our formal comments [i.e., changing the
    statutory mission of GPO's sales program (the current program is
    consistent with statutory direction and longstanding Government
    information dissemination policy); adding an additional shipping charge
    to our publications prices (these costs are already included in our
    publications prices); implementing a just-in-time inventory system
    (this would reduce competition and increase costs in ordering necessary
    supplies); conducting a study on outsourcing the Congressional Record
    (language in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
    1999 directs a joint House/Senate study on the cost-effectiveness of
    producing all congressional documents); implementing a pay-for-
    performance compensation plan (contraindicated by Office of Personnel
    Management studies); creating a Director of Finance position (the
    current structure is sufficient to GPO's needs and the creation of a
    new management position goes against GPO efforts to reduce managerial
    levels); and implementing activity-based costing (GPO's current
    financial operations, as evidenced by recent audits, are sound,
    although this could be explored in the future)].
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
    prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
    have.

                             Y2K compliant systems

        Senator Bennett. Thank you. Let's talk about Y2K.
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bennett. In GAO's briefing on the status of Y2K
    efforts, they tell us that documentation has only been provided
    for 2 of 40 mission critical systems, that 38 remain to be
    implemented. They also state that test and contingency plans
    need to be developed.
        Now your testimony, as I understand it, says that only 5
    systems remain to be validated and implemented.
        This is a fairly big gap between their view and what you
    are telling us.
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bennett. Can we talk about that?
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
        The information that I have received from our people--and
    we have with us Mr. Vince Arendes, whom I have named as the Y2K
    Program Manager in GPO, and Bob Mansker, who is our Deputy
    Public Printer. I have assigned Bob the specific duty of
    dealing with the Y2K compliance. I did that on the first day
    that he came to work for us. I indicated at previous hearings
    that he was assigned that duty.
        The data that we have been given by our people, which is
    beyond the last reporting period to GAO, is that of the 74
    systems that we have, 40 potentially are impacted by Y2K and
    are mission critical systems. Of those 40, all have been
    renovated and there are 5 that haven't been validated and
    implemented.
        Those are the 5 that we are talking about that have not
    been validated and implemented. Within the 40, we have also
    identified 18 mission critical products and services. Those
    have all been validated and are implemented. These include
    those programs in support of the Congress.
        Now I can bring Mr. Arendes to the table because he has
    more detail on it. But if GAO is giving you that report, it is
    in direct conflict with what I have been told.
        Senator Bennett. I remember when we discussed this with you
    in previous hearings. You were talking about new equipment that
    would come in and that would be the solution in many parts. You
    would not try to remediate your present equipment, you would
    simply replace it with new equipment.
        Mr. DiMario. That is true in certain instances. The
    mainframe is an example. We have acquired a new mainframe. It
    is being installed and operational, that mainframe system.
        Senator Bennett. You say it is being installed and
    operational? It is one or the other.
        Mr. Mansker. It has been installed.
        Senator Bennett. It has been installed and it is
    operational now?
        Mr. Mansker. They are now completing the loading of all the
    information. It should be within a month, I think, before it is
    fully operational.
        Senator Bennett. What kind of software is on it? Is the
    software subject to a Y2K problem? Is it new software, written
    just for it?
        Mr. Mansker. It will be fully Y2K compliant.
        Senator Bennett. Do you have contingency plans in case it
    is not?
        Mr. DiMario. Most of the operating software is proprietary
    for which we have the developer's Y2K certification. Part of
    the contingency is the continuation of the current network
    operating system which is run on ``Banyon Vines'' software, and
    there is a provision to make that ``Banyon Vines'' software Y2K
    compliant for the short-term as a backup. But it is not
    something that we can rely on in the long run.
        We have included that, in fact, as part of our request for
    monies for Y2K compliance a small amount of money for that
    ``Banyon Vines'' provision.

                              Y2K compliance costs

        Senator Bennett. You have $8.1 million in here for Y2K
    costs.
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bennett. Compared to what? How much have you spent
    up until now on this? What percentage of your Y2K budget to get
    this thing fixed does $8 million represent?
        Mr. DiMario. We project approximately $25.6 million to be
    spent on Y2K.
        Senator Bennett. So the $8 million would take you to $33
    million?
        Mr. DiMario. No, sir. We are asking for $8.1 million to
    allow us to reimburse part of the $25.6 million for Y2K
    expenditures that we're making, because we are pulling the
    money out of the Revolving Fund now.
        It is the same issue as the elevators, which we have not
    renovated, and the air conditioning. That money is in a
    temporary fund. The Revolving Fund is intended to be a
    temporary funding mechanism created by law, 44 U.S.C. 309. That
    provision has certain specific language. So money is obtained
    through charges, charges against the benefiting appropriations,
    and then it is placed in the Revolving Fund.
        Certain monies have been expended for Y2K that are out of
    pocket. They are not sunk costs, like labor costs for GPO's own
    employees.
        When I say $25.6 million, I am including all of our costs.
        Senator Bennett. What I am trying to get at is this. Let's
    say your Y2K total bill is $25 million.
        Mr. DiMario. $25.6 million. That's what we project to
    invest in it.
        Senator Bennett. What portion of that $25 million have you
    already spent and what portion remains unspent?
        Mr. DiMario. We have spent $19.1 million up through fiscal
    year 1998. That is my understanding.
        Senator Bennett. How about fiscal year 1999? This is an
    appropriation for fiscal year 2000, of course.
        Mr. DiMario. Right. We are including $8.1 million for 2000.
    In fiscal year 1999, I don't know the specific amount that we
    have. Bill Guy might have that.
        Mr. Guy. It's about $6 million this year.
        Senator Bennett. OK. Let me understand these numbers.
        You spent $19.9--let's round it up to $20 million--through
    fiscal year 1998.
        Mr. DiMario. That's right.
        Senator Bennett. You're going to spend another $6 million
    in fiscal year 1999.
        Mr. DiMario. Right.
        Senator Bennett. And you did not budget for any in fiscal
    year 2000?
        Mr. DiMario. For fiscal year 2000, we are asking for $8.1
    million.
        Senator Bennett. Yes, I understand that. My question is
    this: is that reimbursing some of this $26 million?
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, it is. It is reimbursing money that was
    spent.
        Senator Bennett. How much of it is reimbursing and how much
    of it is additional spending?
        Mr. DiMario. I believe it is all reimbursement.
        Mr. Guy. It is almost all reimbursement.
        Mr. Mansker. I think it is only about $400,000 for fiscal
    year 2000.
        Mr. DiMario. And it is not reimbursement for our labor, and
    other sunk costs. Our labor costs and all other sunk costs we
    are taking out of the Revolving Fund. These are employees who
    were on hand. That represents most of the total cost, leaving
    $8.1 million in out of pocket cost for which we are asking
    reimbursement. That is for the hardware and software that we
    have had to purchase specifically----
        Senator Bennett. Wait. Let me understand those numbers.
        You tell me it's $19 million in labor?
        Mr. DiMario. Principally labor costs and other sunk costs,
    about $17.5 million.
        Senator Bennett. And we have $26 million that we have
    identified here. Is that $26 million all for hardware, so that
    your total costs for Y2K would be adding the labor to the
    hardware?
        Mr. DiMario. No, sir.
        Senator Bennett. Or is there some mixing here?
        Mr. DiMario. I think we are asking for the difference
    between $17.5 million in sunk costs and the $25.6 million that
    we have in our Y2K program. That is our total Y2K effort.
        The $19.6 million is money we have expended through fiscal
    year 1998.
        Mr. Mansker. Senator, approximately $25.6 million is the
    totality of our cost for Y2K. We estimate that about $6 million
    of that is in-house labor costs; $19 million of it would be the
    rest of it.
        Mr. DiMario. That's correct. I am misstating it.
        Mr. Mansker. Now, about $8 million of what we are asking
    for comes from that $19 million, for expenses that we would not
    otherwise have expended had it not been for the Y2K problem.
        We would not have had to change a lot of the computers and
    were not planning to do all of that without the Y2K problem
    coming along.
        So what we are asking for in this budget, in the
    appropriations process, the $8 million, is not only
    reimbursement for what we have spent in that regard that we
    would not be planning to spend without Y2K coming along, but
    also for what we have to do in that regard this year as well as
    completing the thing.
        So $8 million is what--of the $25 million total--is what we
    would not be planning to spend had Y2K not come along.
        Senator Bennett. OK. I understand that.
        I won't beat this horse any further.
        Mr. DiMario. I apologize. I was misreading my note with
    respect to the amount for sunk labor costs.
        Senator Bennett. That is no problem.
        I would have a much higher comfort level if GAO's
    assessment of where you are and your assessment of where you
    are were closer. So can I ask you to sit down with GAO and show
    them the documentation?
        Mr. Mansker. Senator, we have been doing that on a regular
    basis. I, as Deputy Director of the Agency, have sat in on
    these meetings.
        I have come away very comfortable with what our
    conversations with GAO have been. These figures represent what
    I have gotten from those meetings.
        Now I would love to have GAO here, right now.
        Senator Bennett. We will contact GAO and see if we can't
    bring these things together.
        I will leave you with one last comment. I do urge you to
    lay out some contingency plans.
        Mr. Mansker. We have those, sir.
        Senator Bennett. OK. Lay out some contingency plans so you
    know what to do in case the remediation that you are expecting
    in fact turns out to have some problems and difficulties.
        Mr. Mansker. Last year, sir, you were very concerned and I
    am sure you still are about the Congress getting its products.
        Senator Bennett. That's right.
        Mr. Mansker. We have tested from both ends, from the Senate
    over to GPO, and it works. We know it works. It is tested.
        Mr. DiMario. The Senate contractor from the Sergeant at
    Arms Office, Mitreteck, came over to GPO. They validated. We
    have transmitted back and forth. I believe that information was
    conveyed to staff.
        Senator Bennett. That is reassuring. Let's make sure.
        Mr. DiMario. We are doing the same thing with the Federal
    Register.
        Mr. Mansker. Yes.
        Mr. DiMario. We are completely compliant with the Federal
    Register and with the Executive Branch. We are attempting right
    now to do the same thing with the House. On the House side, I
    believe because of the GAO briefings on the House side, again,
    I think a briefing at which your staff may have been in
    attendance, hearing what we were doing with the Senate, the
    House was asked by Appropriations staff to get together with
    GPO and to validate the interchange between the two of us.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein.

                               Employment levels

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to ask you about the increase in your Full Time
    Equivalents, which run from about 3,383 to 3,550. Where are
    these FTEs going to be utilized?
        Mr. DiMario. Throughout GPO we are in the same situation
    that GAO explained and the Library of Congress explained. Our
    employment base has gotten older and older. We have been on a
    hiring freeze for 10 years.
        When I came to GPO in 1971, we had 8,500 employees. We
    currently have 3,383. That is the current ceiling.
        We have gotten down to where in every area of GPO--every
    area--we are losing skill and talent. We have approximately a
    third or greater of our employees in our Production Department,
    in the main areas, eligible for retirement. We have not brought
    new blood in anywhere in the agency to speak of. We have a
    limited program of hiring distinguished college graduates, if
    we can get them, out in the marketplace.
        We are hurting in the computer field, the I-T area. It is
    just very difficult to get these professionals.
        We are hurting in every single area in the office. So to
    delineate where they are would mean to name each of these
    groups.
        But we need people and we need to bring them in and train
    them in systems. We, this year, because of the Starr report and
    issues facing the Congress, faced some monumental delivery
    issues. We performed, we thought, extremely well in the
    circumstances.
        We delivered to the Congress, both the House and the
    Senate, products that they needed to carry on their work in the
    impeachment process, in the important activities that were
    going on, and that workforce has been challenged. It has been
    overloaded.
        I just cannot tell you--I have the highest respect for my
    people.
        You cannot find people who are more dedicated, more
    professional, more willing to do the work. And what we have
    done over and over and over is just to cut the activity and not
    replace people.
        I am telling you that, in my professional judgment, we have
    gone too far. We need to do something and put a brake on it.
        All I am asking is to put us back to the level that we were
    at a year ago.
        Senator Feinstein. So these 100-plus people go where?
        Mr. DiMario. Some will go into the Production Department.
    Some will go in our Data Systems area. Some will go in our
    Documents area. They will go in various places throughout the
    organization.
        It is not 100 going to one area.
        Mr. Mansker. Senator Feinstein, we could begin with a list
    of where certain numbers would go from time to time. But right
    off the top of my head I can tell you that there are 3 needed
    in personnel. If you want me to outline some further, I could.
        We have a backlog of job descriptions that, because of
    vacancies not filled, are really getting to be of concern.
        In our Bindery, we have positions that need to be filled
    because we are not being able to get certain products out in a
    very timely manner. We could go on like that.
        Production has asked for 10 people just recently.
        Mr. DiMario. We have already contracted out about 75
    percent to 80 percent of the work under a policy initiative.
    The policy initiative is to contract out as much as possible.
    We are doing that and we continue to look at that effort.
        But there are some functions that we necessarily have to be
    prepared to do internally with direct hires.
        We have contracted out parts of the police organization. We
    have contracted out portions of industrial cleaning functions.
    We are doing those kinds of things to cut the numbers and to
    try to keep just the professional staff that we need to run the
    place.
        But it is very, very difficult. After 35-plus years of
    service, I will tell you that it is the most difficult time to
    manage when you are facing manpower shortages over and over
    again.
        In my 6-plus years in this job, I have attempted to do
    everything that the Congress has asked us to do and to do it in
    a timely fashion. But it reaches a point when you really have
    to say that there is just a point where we need to have some
    brake on it. At least allow us to regroup.
        We have been examined over and over. I cannot tell you how
    many GAO and other audit functions have happened, how many
    times people are sent into the office, over and over and over
    again. That consumes manpower.
        We have people who are just dedicated to doing nothing but
    answering questions.
        Senator Feinstein. I gather there is a small conflict.
    Let's just see if we can clear it up.
        What is your current on-board level?
        Mr. DiMario. My understanding of the current on-board is, I
    believe, 3,316. For on-board I would have to ask my personnel
    director. We have people leave every day. We have people who
    come on board every day.
        Senator Feinstein. I think it would be useful if we got
    that straightened out because I am told it is 100 less than
    your FTE ceiling.
        Mr. DiMario. I believe it is.
        Mr. Mansker. You're talking about actually on-board as
    opposed to the FTE level?
        Senator Feinstein. Right. So, in other words, you have 100
    fewer people than you could have and yet you are asking for
    more, 100 more?
        Mr. DiMario. On any given day, your FTE level, you may not
    reach that level because you are hiring people and some people
    may decide to retire, some people may get injured, they may go
    on a sick/injured list.
        Senator Feinstein. So you are saying you are never up to
    your full budgeted force?
        Mr. DiMario. You may be and you may exceed the FTE at a
    given point. For the year, you cannot exceed the FTE number.
        We asked for that kind of specific language a couple of
    years ago, that it was an FTE count at the end of the year. If
    it was an FTE count on a daily basis, we would never be able to
    exceed it.
        Mr. Mansker. The on-board number drops considerably after
    the first of the year because there are a lot of retirements.
        When the list comes through of separations as well as
    hiring, the separations right after January were very large
    because of retirements. That drops the on-board. But you
    immediately turn around and try to start filling them.
        Mr. DiMario. We've got vacancy announcements out. We are
    trying to hire people to fill those jobs.
        Mr. Mansker. So that is going to go back up and the average
    will be much higher than the number of current on boards.
        Senator Feinstein. Are you saying you always function at
    100 below your on-board level?
        Mr. DiMario. No, no.
        Mr. Mansker. No.
        Mr. DiMario. The number varies day by day. On-board
    strength--you are always hiring. People leave. It's true.
        That number will change on a daily basis.
        Senator Feinstein. I don't doubt that. But maybe the best
    way to pursue this is to ask you to present it in writing to
    us.
        Mr. DiMario. Sure.
        Senator Feinstein. In this way we would have the monthly
    on-board levels for the past year, in writing.
        Mr. DiMario. Sure.
        Senator Feinstein. Then maybe we can take a look at that
    with some clarity. I would appreciate that very much.
        [The information follows:]

    GPO monthly on-board employment, March 1998-February 1999

    1998:
        March......................................................... 3,506
        April......................................................... 3,489
        May........................................................... 3,474
        June.......................................................... 3,455
        July.......................................................... 3,439
        August........................................................ 3,445
        September..................................................... 3,435
        October....................................................... 3,409
        November...................................................... 3,397
        December...................................................... 3,387
    1999:
        January....................................................... 3,330
        February...................................................... 3,316

                          Integrated processing system

        Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you one quick thing about the
    IPS system.
        Mr. DiMario. Yes. Mr. Buckley can answer that.
        Senator Feinstein. What has been the cause of the delays?
        Mr. Buckley. The Integrated Processing System is to replace
    our order management process, the whole order management
    process, from taking orders, the control of the inventory,
    financial reporting, producing picking tickets for shipping the
    materials, et cetera.
        It is replacing 18 old legacy systems that were not
    integrated previously. So it is quite a complex process.
        We have received delivery from our contractor of the basic
    system and modifications. But there are a number of bugs in the
    software that we are now testing and having remediated. So the
    delays have been, actually, in integration of the new software
    that we are getting and testing it for all of the very complex
    functions that we do, both in terms of orders for single
    publications and orders for subscriptions. We operate quite a
    complex order fulfillment process in the sales program because
    we are a governmental function, and because of the variety of
    publications and products that we offer.
        Senator Feinstein. When will it be fully implemented?
        Mr. Buckley. August 1 is my goal.
        We will be able to test and should have it, the critical
    systems, tested and operational, within a month. But then we
    will go through a process of training the staff before we
    actually implement it on August 1.
        Mr. DiMario. When I brought Mr. Buckley on board, the one
    program I asked him to pay personal attention to and told him
    that he was required to be responsible for was IPS, to bring
    that system in because I believe it to be so critical to the
    system.
        It's exactly the same thing that I did when I hired Mr.
    Mansker. I asked him to pay attention to and manage the Y2K
    program.
        So those two programs have had the two highest level
    people, subordinate to me, responsible for those programs--
    short of managing them myself.
        Senator Feinstein. I think I got the answer, which is that
    you expect it to be fully operational August 1. That will go
    down in the record.

                              Delinquent payments

        Let me ask you about your procured printing services.
        It is my understanding that some of the agencies are
    delinquent in paying you and that has some impact on your
    operations. Which agencies account for most of the
    delinquencies?
        Mr. DiMario. In the past, the Department of Defense has
    been the agency that has been most delinquent. They always run
    behind.
        Bob may have some more definitive information on it. But we
    have attempted to work with the Department of Defense. I have
    spoken to their manager, their Defense Automated Printing
    Service on it. We have seen some improvements in the past on
    it.
        But that was the most delinquent single agency.
        Mr. Mansker. That is still the agency that is most
    delinquent. However, we are working with them on Treasury's
    electronic payment system and on a new credit card system of
    payment which I think will greatly improve that.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.

                         Additional committee questions

        We have some additional questions which we will submit to
    you in writing.
        Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bennett. We thank you for being here and good luck
    to you on these various challenges.
        Mr. DiMario. Thank you.
        Senator Bennett. We will work closely with you.
        Thank you for being here.
        Mr. DiMario. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                         Additional Committee Questions
        Question. GPO testified before the House Legislative Subcommittee
    last month that it would complete the implementation phase by the end
    of March. GPO's testimony today states that 5 systems remain to be
    implemented. Will those 5 systems be completed in the next 2 weeks?
        Answer. No, the 5 systems that we addressed in our testimony before
    the Senate are replacement projects that for various reasons have
    encountered delays and now have implementation dates beyond March 1999.
        Question. Based on GPO's assessment that it has tested 35 systems,
    and has 5 remaining, do you have test and contingency plans in writing
    for the remaining 5 systems and when do you anticipate completing
    testing?
        Answer. The current status of the 5 replacement projects follows:
        New Integrated Processing System.--At the present time we are
    reviewing and testing the contractor's modified system that has been
    delivered and installed. This review is identifying processing and
    program errors that are being submitted to the contractor for software
    repairs. This phase is scheduled to be completed by the end of April
    1999. The next phase will be a full functional test and the final phase
    will be to train all Documents personnel on the new system. This
    training will be completed within 3 months and the implementation of
    the new Integrated Processing System is scheduled for August 1, 1999.
        New General Ledger Package.--The new General Ledger database
    software has been installed and 11 months of data for fiscal year 1998
    have been loaded. Our testing plans call for finalizing fiscal year
    1998 and loading data for fiscal year 1999 through the financial
    reporting period of February 1999. After parallel testing the financial
    statements for March and April, the live implementation of the new
    General Ledger is planned for the end of May 1999.
        PROBE System.--We are currently testing the new system hardware and
    software. Implementation of the new system devices for the first area
    selected for installation is planned for the beginning of May 1999. The
    replacement devices will continue to be installed throughout all areas
    of GPO with a completion date for full implementation of all collection
    devices (110) scheduled for September 1999.
        Mainframe Conversion Project.--The new mainframe has been installed
    and the OS 390 operating system has been loaded and tested. The switch
    over to the new system is currently planned for the third weekend in
    April 1999. At that time, all of GPO's mainframe application systems
    will be operational in the new OS 390 environment. However, not all of
    the other proprietary system software components that are needed for
    the applications to run will be at their Y2K compliant versions. The
    migration to a fully Y2K compliant platform on the mainframe will take
    an additional 2 months. The scheduled Y2K verification and
    implementation date for all existing mainframe applications on the new
    mainframe platform is the end of June 1999.
        Automated Depository Distribution System.--The proposal for the
    replacement equipment and software changes required to upgrade the
    existing Lighted Bin System is ready to be submitted to the Joint
    Committee on Printing (JCP) for approval. The entire project is
    scheduled for completion within 180 days after the JCP approval is
    received.
        Question. The request includes $15 million for the revolving fund
    for items that a business would consider capital expenses--Y2K costs,
    air conditioning, and elevator renovations. It is my understanding that
    GPO is supposed to build into its charges overhead costs which are then
    deposited in the revolving fund and used for these types of projects.
    Even if you discount for the Y2K problem, why is GPO requesting funds
    to pay for items that should have already been budgeted for in the
    pricing structure?
        Answer. You are correct, in part, that the ``GPO is supposed to
    build into its charges overhead costs which are then deposited in the
    revolving fund and used for these types of projects.'' That statement
    can only be implemented if the GPO is allowed to do so.
        Title 44, Section 309 specifically states that ``the Public Printer
    shall provide capital for the fund'' for the Agency's necessities
    ``except building structures and land.'' The air conditioning system
    and the elevators, as installed real property, are considered to be
    within the exception which requires appropriations--just as occurred in
    1974 when the Congress directly appropriated $7.4 million for the
    current air conditioning system.
        Until 1990, GPO operated on the policy of covering all of the
    necessary expenses of the Agency, other than building structures and
    land, through funds that were deposited in the revolving fund. The
    revolving fund maintained a reasonable balance to adequately achieve
    our planning objectives. We were able to keep approximately $50 million
    of uncommitted-unrestricted funds for that use. If the revolving fund
    was significantly reduced by needed expenditures, we would adjust our
    prices to recover to the adequate position.
        In that year, however, the process was changed by the Joint
    Committee on Printing. By their directive, we were not permitted to
    raise our prices on our printing products. The directive of the Joint
    Committee remained in effect for four years, and the impact on the
    revolving fund and our operations was catastrophic. The burden of
    increased costs of raw materials and labor had to be borne by the funds
    in the revolving fund--thereby eliminating the needed funds ``that
    should have been budgeted for in the pricing structure?''
        In those years when the directive of the Joint Committee was in
    effect, our operating losses skyrocketed--not because of the manner in
    which we were operating, rather because of the restrictions that was
    placed on us by the Joint Committee. It was not until Chairman Thomas,
    after seeing the devastating effect the directive had on our
    operations, directed us to recover our costs of operations through our
    pricing structure did we begin to come out of our dilemma.
        Y2K costs which we seek to recover through direct appropriation
    have also come from the already severely depleted revolving fund. We
    seek an appropriation for only $8.1 million, which does not take into
    account any expenditures that were already in the planning schedule
    prior to Y2K becoming an issue nor any labor costs of GPO employees.
    The appropriations request is an accounting of only those funds that
    would otherwise not have been spent.
        And, Senator, in addition to all the above, the Congress directed
    us to use up to $11 million of revolving fund money to fund our own
    appropriation for Congressional Printing and Binding in 1998, of which
    $3.7 million was required.
        For the past two years, we have recovered to the point of positive
    incomes slightly above break-even. Even with the end-of-year positive
    balance, our uncommitted-unrestricted money continues to be severely
    diminished and is impacted by congressional work schedules. We do not
    draw direct appropriations; we only draw from the Congressional
    Printing and Binding appropriation when we provide support to the
    Congress.
        So, to recap the situation, our appropriations request includes $15
    million for the revolving fund for capital expenses--Y2K costs, air
    conditioning, and elevator renovations for two reasons: (1) Title 44,
    Section 309 takes ``building structures and land'' out of the
    classifications that are designated to be funded by the revolving fund,
    and (2) Even if one concludes differently from (1) above, the
    managerial directives of the Congress since 1990 have virtually
    destroyed our ability to pay for these projects out of the revolving
    fund without severely endangering our ability to timely recover the
    committed-unrestricted funds of the revolving fund that are used during
    lean periods of production.
        Question. The budget requests $6 million for an air conditioning
    system. Last year when this issue was raised this Committee directed
    GPO to seek authorization from the oversight committee for a total plan
    for capital upgrades. Have you developed a total plan and secured
    approval from the authorization committee?
        Answer. In 1996 and again last year, we submitted an appropriation
    request for $6 million for air conditioning repairs--the same amount
    that we are requesting this year. The need is even greater now. We are
    fortunate that the system prevailed during a relatively mild summer. We
    sought authorization from the Joint Committee on Printing and submitted
    ``a total plan for capital upgrades''.
        The approval of our request was entangled in the Joint Committee's
    efforts to get S. 2288 through the Senate; however, we were never given
    any reason, other than verbal, for inaction on our request. At this
    time, we are hopeful that the Joint Committee will approve this project
    in the very near future; however, we must have the funding available to
    accomplish the needed repairs.
        Question. The testimony noted that the procurement and sales areas
    lost revenue. How does the procurement area lose revenue when a
    surcharge is placed on each printing job? Does GPO have a plan to turn
    the procurement and sales areas around?
        Answer. GPO's Printing Procurement Program seeks to fully recover
    its costs through a surcharge of 6 percent (with a ceiling of $15,000
    per job) and historically comes very close to this goal with a slight
    surplus or loss at the end of each year. This program fully recovered
    its costs in fiscal year 1996 and had a modest under recovery in fiscal
    year 1997 of only .4 percent. However, the unexpected drop in paper
    prices to historic lows during the past year, along with a $1,000,000
    cost allocation for the Booz-Allen Hamilton study combined for an under
    recovery of 1.5 percent, or $7 million during fiscal year 1998.
        To deal with this under recovery, GPO has been actively reducing
    its operating costs as it implements a new LAN-based computer system
    throughout the Printing Procurement Department. This new system will
    provide both personnel savings and speed the processing of orders.
    Additionally, with the assistance of our customer agencies, we have
    undertaken a review of the surcharge system and rates, and are
    establishing new simplified purchasing agreements to increase work and
    improve services. Paper prices now appear to be recovering and
    experienced a modest increase last quarter. We are hopeful that these
    combined efforts will result in full recovery of costs for the printing
    procurement program during fiscal year 1999.
        In fiscal year 1998, the Sales Program under recovered costs by
    $3.6 million on revenue of $60.6 million. This compares to net income
    of $1.8 million in fiscal year 1997 on revenue of $67.8 million.
    Revenue from key Sales Program products has been declining in recent
    years. Reasons for this decline include increased access to these
    products through competitive print and online products offered for sale
    by private sector entities or other Government agencies such as the
    National Technical Information Service (NTIS), as well as through no-
    fee access via GPO's web site. In addition, a decline in Government
    agency publishing has resulted in fewer printed information products
    available through the Sales Program. Sales Program management is
    currently conducting an intensive review to determine ways to increase
    revenue, decrease expenses, and introduce more print and electronic
    products into the program.
        The Sales Program is taking a number of steps to increase the
    availability of its products through the use of electronic commerce.
    The program's online Sales Product Catalog (SPC) is accessible by the
    public via GPO's web site, and in the next few weeks, new encryption
    software will ensure secure ordering. The electronic file of the SPC
    can also be downloaded via FTP from GPO's Federal Bulletin Board. The
    program is establishing an online Government bookstore on the World
    Wide Web and has begun listing selected sales titles on the Amazon and
    Barnes and Noble booksellers web sites.
        The Sales Program is also working with publishing agencies to
    increase the number of their salable products in GPO's sales inventory.
    General customer satisfaction and product-specific customer surveys are
    being used to understand and improve Sales Program services to the
    public. A new category of sales products deemed to be of historical
    significance has been created to ensure long-term public access to such
    titles.
        Question. The testimony notes that overtime utilization has
    increased by 11 percent in the past year and that employment levels are
    dangerously low. What has GPO done to cross train current employees
    from areas that are under utilized to assist in areas that are busier
    and require overtime?
        Answer. Under separate cover, we have transmitted to you the number
    of employees on board at GPO at this time. We have continued to cut
    staff in all areas of the Agency in order to reach the congressionally
    mandated number of FTE's--3,383--a number we feel is dangerous for the
    Agency's effort to timely deliver and quality product to the Congress.
        We have stated this fact in testimony before the Congress for the
    past two years. There is only one area in the GPO where there is any
    hint of under utilization. In the recently acquired computer-to-plate
    operation, we are working to provide cross training to those
    individuals who will be put out of their current positions by this new
    technology. In the next two years, we hope to be able to assimilate all
    of the effected men and women into new areas.
        Because of the continued congressionally mandated reductions in
    FTE's, there are no additional under utilized workforces at GPO.
    Because there is no need whatsoever for a mandated ``reduction in
    force--RIF,'' we were not in a position to offer our employees the
    ``buyout'' that was authorized in the last year's appropriation
    legislation. Just the opposite is our need--rather than a RIF, we must
    have the ability to correctly and adequately staff our production and
    management functions to guarantee timely and quality products to
    Congress.
        With 232 ``fill actions'' actively progressing toward fulfillment
    in GPO, it is vital that we return to the level of 3,550 FTE's
    authorized by Congress last year. We will continue to cut positions
    where it is possible. The record of our success in that field should
    not be ignored when considering our only request to take a ``breather''
    from the cuts that have transformed GPO in the past two decades from a
    workforce of 8,500 to our current level. GPO will offer retraining
    opportunities to any employees that may become underutilized due to
    changes in technology and workload mix.
        Question. GPO has been delivering depository library materials
    electronically for a number of years. How many depository libraries
    have no computer access?
        Answer. Electronic distributions to the depository libraries
    consist primarily of online Government information products, typically
    accessible via the World Wide Web. A minor percentage of electronic
    distributions are CD-ROM products. Based on the results from GPO's most
    recent Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries, only 32 of the 1,358
    responding depository libraries (2.4 percent) reported no plans to
    provide Internet access for the public by January 1, 1999. The same
    survey responses indicated that only 29 depository libraries (2.1
    percent) lacked the capability to use CD-ROM's.
        Question. At last years hearing we discussed the possibility of
    renting excess space at the GPO building to another government agency.
    Have you looked into that possibility?
        Answer. We have no plans at this time to lease space in the main
    GPO building. As we indicated last year, the available space is
    limited, as are the opportunities for renting space. GPO is working
    with a landlord to return 25,000 square feet of leased warehouse space
    located in Laurel, Maryland.
                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

    STATEMENT OF JANET S. ZAGORIN, CHAIR, AMERICAN BAR
                ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW
                LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
    ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM ORTON, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                UTAH AND MEMBER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING
                COMMITTEE ON THE LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

        Senator Bennett. Our last panel is the American Bar
    Association, from which we have two witnesses: Ms. Janet
    Zagorin, who chairs the American Bar Association's Standing
    Committee on the Law Library of Congress. She is accompanied by
    one of my constituents, former Congressman Bill Orton from
    Utah. He is a member of the Committee on the Law Library of
    Congress and has testified before us previously.
        I assume that the clock has run and we don't have to swear
    you in at this time. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Orton. I think so. Yes.
        Senator Bennett. That was one of the more interesting
    experiences of my new chairmanship, where I didn't know how to
    do it. He should have handed me a piece of paper telling me how
    to do that.
        We welcome you both and look forward to your testimony.
        Ms. Zagorin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Feinstein. We are very honored to be able to speak to you this
    morning.
        Senator Bennett. We apologize for the length of your wait
    today.
        Ms. Zagorin. That's fine. We are very grateful that you
    allowed us to speak once again. I am certainly honored that
    Bill is a member of our committee now and is going to
    participate in my testimony.
        This committee has always been very supportive, the ABA is
    supportive of the Law Library of Congress. As I think you know,
    we have had a standing committee at the ABA for close to 70
    years now to support the Law Library of Congress. So it is an
    enormous commitment on our part because we think that the Law
    Library, contrary to what some people may have thought, becomes
    a much more important part of our culture and plays a much more
    important role, particularly as we approach the Millennium.
    Technology and the need for information I think become much
    more powerful.
        It is essentially your law library. It is the library
    across the street from you and for every member of Congress,
    and it is accessible to every member of State or Federal
    Governments and your staffs. I think most of you probably use
    it for some very, very sophisticated, confidential, timely, and
    critical information.
        I think, as we see changes in information technology and as
    we see changes in just the role of government throughout the
    United States, as well as throughout the world, we think that
    the Law Library becomes the library across the street
    essentially for every citizen.
        I mean, you and Bill come from a State that is very far
    away from Washington, D.C. And yet, I think the Law Library has
    as much impact there as it certainly has in the State where I
    live, in New York, or in California, if not more.
        Senator Bennett. California is even farther away.
    [Laughter.]
        Ms. Zagorin. And I learned that at the library. [Laughter.]
        But it is not really farther away in certain respects.
        I know that you heard testimony this morning about numbers
    and about dollars. Bill and I really want to summarize my
    written testimony and make a couple of key points.
        We think that the need to have access to what is there--and
    you can see that from the charts I provided to you--to what is
    the largest legal collection in the world is an unbelievable
    accomplishment of this democracy. It has been accomplished over
    200 years.
        It contains our failings, our weaknesses, from the slave
    codes of every jurisdiction to our greatest triumphs.
        We think that we at the ABA are committed to making sure
    that this access to information for students, for senior
    citizens, whether they need to know about Medicare information,
    Congressional debate, access to information on foreign
    jurisdictions, this collection must be both maintained and
    enhanced.
        In addition to being that kind of library for every citizen
    in the United States, I think that we have an opportunity here
    that goes way beyond what I think are very modest dollars. This
    committee was very, very supportive of our request for the Law
    Library last year.
        But I think that the opportunity is, again, as we look
    around our world and look around our country, it is there. We
    want to show what the strength of a democratic Nation is and
    the rule of law. We believe very fervently that there is a
    nonpartisan and completely I think meaningful way to show that;
    that Congress is willing to open its Law Library to access by
    anyone, anyone who can get on the Internet and look at the Web
    page.
        I think the more people who go on-line for information,
    from school children to people in China, to people around the
    world who are looking for models for the rule of law, models
    for democracy, show that it speaks volumes that this Congress
    allows--I mean, obviously, not your confidential CRS reports--
    but people can get on and see the Law Library of Congress.
        We provide in this country access to every statute, every
    decision, regulations, Congressional debate, amendments to
    bills, and access even to the foreign law collection of the
    United States as well. It becomes a very powerful tool without
    a lot of statement.
        I mean, we no longer do at the State Department some of the
    publications that many of us believed were a very valuable
    expression of the rule of law and models.
        I think that if the Law Library of Congress expands its
    role in GLIN, about which you probably heard this morning, the
    Global Legal Information Network which brings countries
    together, increases the digitized material that is available
    from our historic collections and on-line currently on the Web
    page, this costs some money--to digitize and provide
    information. Many of the agencies that you heard from are
    putting their material there. It is all in the Library of
    Congress. It is all at the Law Library.
        We would like to be able to see that immediately up on
    their Web page.
        I think that it has a very, very deep and resonant impact
    on our citizenry to say that this is a democracy, this is what
    it means, you see the good and the bad.
        I think the request of this hearing has been fairly modest
    for what we believe is an impact that can go well beyond the
    dollars.

                               prepared statement

        So I think Bill might have a word or two to say. But we
    really would appreciate it if you would support the Law
    Library's request.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Janet S. Zagorin
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American Bar
    Association (ABA) appreciates the opportunity to speak in support of
    the fiscal year 2000 Legislative Appropriations budget. My name is
    Janet Zagorin and I am Chair of the American Bar Association Standing
    Committee on the Law Library of Congress. Accompanying me is Bill
    Orton, former Member of Congress from Utah, and a member of the ABA
    Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress. We are here at the
    request of Philip Anderson, President of the Association. In my non-
    volunteer life, I am a law librarian. I am currently the Director of
    Practice Development at the law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the ABA in support
    of the budget request of the Library of Congress and its Law Library.
        The American Bar Association is the world's largest professional
    organization representing a large and diverse voluntary membership of
    over 400,000 attorneys nationwide. The ABA created the Standing
    Committee on the Law Library of Congress in 1932, as a measure of its
    dedication to preserving our nation's Law Library and its vast
    collection of legal literature and sources. Since its inception, the
    Standing Committee has consistently acted as the Association's liaison
    and voice of the legal profession concerning the continued development
    and operation of the Law Library of Congress.
        On behalf of the Association, I commend the Congress for having
    established one of the most prestigious and comprehensive legal
    collections in the world. This year, the Law Library has asked for a
    modest increase in its funding, which we believe is the minimum
    appropriation required if the Law Library is to continue to provide
    first-rate research service to Congress, maintain its role as an
    innovator in the delivery of electronic information, and preserve its
    treasures for future generations.
        I know that you are facing many difficult choices as you
    contemplate the Legislative Branch budget, but I hope that you will
    spare our nation's Library in those efforts. As in recent years, the
    Library has requested only the vital essentials and a reasonable
    increase to continue to meet the demands of its strategic plan and a
    rapidly changing world. The Law Library, likewise, must be able to
    continue to maintain its role as the ultimate legal resource center for
    our citizens. In spite of shrinking resources, the Law Library
    continues to provide service to the public at large in American law
    through its reading room, and on foreign and comparative law on a
    priority basis through legal specialists in its research directorate.
    An enhanced web site for the Law Library to further facilitate access
    to legal reference services is being developed.
        The Law Library is extremely grateful for the support of the
    Committee on Appropriations. As you may be aware, in the past, the
    Library has undergone significant reductions in staffing and services.
    While the funding the Law Library received last year enabled the Law
    Library to maintain and improve certain areas, the Library is still
    forced to confront the considerable downsizing that took place in
    previous years. We ask for Congress' continued support in granting the
    Library the resources it needs to develop, maintain, and preserve its
    collection and its reference services, and to prevent further erosion
    of its workforce.
        Faced with the necessity of developing a leading presence in the
    electronic age while maintaining its preeminent legal collection, the
    Library of Congress must have adequate funding to remain a leader in
    serving the Congress and the nation. While the Library is a critical
    resource available to every citizen of our country, immediate access to
    the great resources of the Law Library should be made more available to
    everyone--from isolated senior citizens to urban school children--via
    the internet. This, however, can only be accomplished by increased
    funding for the Law Library's technical support team. Even with the
    generous funding Congress granted last year, the Law Library is unable
    to achieve the level of research services it believes Congress deserves
    and requires. For example, the Law Library must support its entire
    research program with a staff of seven, and the largest legal
    collection in the world has only two part-time staff responsible for
    the filing of one million loose-leaf pages annually. We believe that
    proper funding for the Law Library's technical support team and
    computer systems is vitally important to ensure the integrity of the
    Law Library's collections and to provide Congress with the services
    upon which it must depend!
        Fiscal year 2000 will be a ``Year of Great Transition,'' for the
    Library of Congress. One of the Library's building blocks for this
    transition is the expansion of the Global Legal Information Network
    (GLIN). GLIN is the digital future of the Law Library. What began as a
    simple card file over fifty years ago has grown into an international
    network of the world's legislative bodies sharing via the Internet the
    full text of their nation's laws and regulations. The GLIN database
    contains information on over 70,000 laws and regulations from 46
    countries, and provides Congress with a direct link to foreign,
    comparative, and international laws.
        The Law Library is also contributing approximately 40 percent of
    the digital information to the Library's National Digital Library
    program. Through a program entitled, A Century of Lawmaking for a New
    Nation, the Law Library is making available through the Internet the
    debates and documents of the first 42 Congresses including debates on
    ratification of the constitution, the records of the federal
    convention, and the debates and laws of the Continental Congress. The
    ABA hopes that you will approve the budget request which will enable
    the Library to continue adding Congressional records to the internet.
    The funding requested for the Library's automation projects, including
    GLIN, will undoubtedly strengthen and enhance its efficiency and
    effectiveness internally and globally, in serving the Congress, in
    expanding public access to its invaluable collections, and in
    sustaining its role as the leader and progressive host of this vast
    knowledge.
        Giving the Library of Congress and its Law Library the support it
    needs to preserve the knowledge and ideas, that sustain us as a
    community and a nation, would be a significant gift to our country and
    to the Library in its bicentennial year, which will be celebrated in
    2000. It is the oldest Federal cultural institution in our country,
    serving Congress as its priority client, all Federal Agencies, as well
    as state and local governments. But it is also important to remember
    that the nation at large is served by the Library. As technology and
    the information age advance, new opportunities to serve Congress and
    the nation are available, but at the same time new challenges exist
    that make support for the Library even more crucial. At this critical
    time, it is imperative that we continue to support this great
    institution as we move into the new millennium.
        In this turbulent and challenging world, the Law Library represents
    a powerful reaffirmation that we are a democratic nation of laws and
    that access to our laws is and should remain open and free. Mr.
    Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American Bar Association
    appreciates your courtesy in allowing me to appear before you today. We
    hope that you will look most favorably upon the budget request of the
    Library of Congress and its Law Library.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.000

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA17.002

        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Bill?
        Mr. Orton. Thank you, Senator Bennett and Senator
    Feinstein, first for the privilege of speaking with you for
    just a few minutes and second for your historic support of the
    Library of Congress and the Law Library of Congress in
    particular.
        We thank you for the generosity that the committee has
    shown over the past few years.
        I recall when I first came to Congress that we had an
    annual deficit of over $350 billion. We are now in a surplus.
        To do that, to get there, the Congress had to cut budgets.
    There has been an impact for those budget cuts.
        The Law Library of Congress, I think we all can be very
    proud of them for what they have been able to accomplish with
    the few resources that they have. But just practically
    speaking, if you were to grant them their entire budget request
    this year, it still would not put them back to the level of
    staffing at which they were in 1994, when we started cutting
    those budgets dramatically.
        As a practical matter, to show you the impact of those
    staff reductions, the law is an ever-changing field. To keep up
    with the law, many services that report the various changes in
    statutes, cases, regulations, et cetera, issue weekly and
    oftentimes daily update sheets.
        Those sheets come into the Library of Congress and if they
    are not posted, you don't have the current law.
        They are, right now, millions of pages behind in posting
    those updates, simply because they do not have the clerical
    support to do it.
        If you don't have a current statute before you, you cannot
    rely on the accuracy of the information you are getting from
    your own library.
        So it seems to me that you have two choices: either abolish
    the library or fund it adequately to provide you with current,
    up-to-date information.
        Senator Bennett. Are you suggesting that the request we
    have gotten from the Library is too low and that we should
    increase it?
        Mr. Orton. Being out of Congress, I would even encourage
    you to up it, you know, give them more than they asked to let
    them get back to the staff levels at which they have been
    previously.
        They have a number of things going on beyond just operating
    the library, as well. Janet mentioned GLIN. You heard from both
    Dr. Billington and Dr. Medina previously. They have adequately
    laid out the background for their needs.
        But as the American Bar Association, as a group of this
    culture and country who rely on the law, we rely on the Law
    Library as well and we would encourage you to fully fund them,
    to provide the request--it is the Congress' library--so that
    you can rely on it and know that you are getting current, up-
    to-date information. Then we, as the legal community, can rely
    upon it and all of your constituents and our colleagues and
    citizens in this country all can rely upon that library.
        So we thank you for what you have done in the past and urge
    you to meet the needs that they have submitted.
        I don't know if you have any questions.
        Senator Bennett. I think you have made the case in very
    compelling fashion. We appreciate your interest and your time
    to come in here to do this.
        Mr. Orton. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Zagorin. We thank you very much on behalf of the ABA.
        Senator Bennett. Do you have any further questions? If you
    do, you are presiding.
        Senator Feinstein. May I ask just one quick question?
        Senator Bennett. As I say, if you have further questions,
    then you are presiding. You can then take whatever time you
    want.
        Mr. Orton. And while you are presiding, you can up the
    request.
        Senator Feinstein (presiding). All right, then. I will
    finish and close up.
        Ms. Zagorin. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. I have just a quick question. These
    other libraries, do they do the updates as well? And do they
    make it available to everybody?
        Ms. Zagorin. Those are the five largest law library
    collections in the United States. As you see, the Law Library
    has the largest collection, built over 200 years, the smallest
    book budget and the smallest staff.
        They all have the same access to materials. But they do not
    provide access to Congress. Nor do they provide access to
    citizens.
        You may pay to use their libraries. If you are a wealthy
    law firm like mine or a corporation, you can have a
    subscription. They are not open to the public except for the
    depository part.
        Senator Feinstein. So does one have to pay to use the
    Congressional Library? No?
        Ms. Zagorin. No. It is completely open. Any citizen
    anywhere, anybody, can come in.
        Senator Feinstein. Is it the only resource that is
    completely open?
        Ms. Zagorin. Except for the public library system that you
    would have in each city or State.
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Ms. Zagorin. They log on to this overall Web that the
    Library of Congress, the Law Library, has. But the Law Library
    is the only one that has complete access and has the collection
    that it has. You can even get reference help.
        You may go to the Law Library or call up, or have your
    State library call, and get research--from anywhere.
        Senator Feinstein. I think you have made a good point. I
    would certainly be supportive of your request.
        Ms. Zagorin. Thank you very much. We think it is so
    important.
        Senator Feinstein. I thank you very much for taking the
    time to do this.
        Ms. Zagorin. It is important to all of us.
        Thank you very much.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        There being no further business, we will recess the
    meeting.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., Wednesday, March 17, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

             LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Bennett and Stevens.

                                  U.S. SENATE

                     Office of the Secretary of the Senate

    STATEMENTS OF:
            GARY SISCO, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
            TIMOTHY S. WINEMAN, FINANCIAL CLERK OF THE SENATE

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Good morning. The hearing will come to
    order. This is our last hearing on the Legislative Branch
    budget request for fiscal 2000. I am delighted that we are
    moving along in the pattern that we are and will have completed
    the Legislative Branch hearings by the end of March.
        Before we begin with our witnesses, I will surprise no one
    by raising my favorite subject, Y2K. I have been warning all of
    the agencies that come before this subcommittee on how
    important it is and how personally embarrassing it would be,
    after all the noise I have made on this subject, if everybody
    else is compliant and the Senate is not. I understand that word
    has gotten out and we are going to be buried with more
    information than we want today, so I look forward to that.
        I have a statement from Senator Craig, a member of the
    subcommittee who was not able to be here, and it will be placed
    in the record at this point.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig

        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing
    today. The Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and
    the Congressional Budget Office all provide services which are
    vital to each of us. I would also like to take a second and
    welcome the new Sergeant at Arms, James Ziglar, to his first
    budget hearing. I look forward to many more hearings with Mr.
    Ziglar.
        There are several important issues that this committee is
    addressing, and I don't want to discount them. However, the
    issue that I want to focus on today is the changes that are
    taking place with the Computer Information Services (CIS) that
    the Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and the
    Senate Rules Committee are involved with.
        As the Committee is aware, last July Senate offices were
    notified by the Senate Rules Committee and the Sergeant at Arms
    that the online services which are offered to Senate offices
    were going to be dramatically changed. The Senate, through its
    Legislative Information Service (LIS), will provide the bulk of
    online legislative research. Services not provided by LIS may
    be purchased by outside vendors, either by the Senate or by
    individual offices. The Committee had concerns with the
    proposal and voiced these concerns with language in the fiscal
    year 1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations Conference Report.
        The temporary program, valid through the end of this
    calendar year, works to address the temporary concerns of
    offices who were feared they would lose key research
    capabilities they rely on. However, it does not address the
    fundamental question of where these changes are headed and why
    they are taking place.
        Over the last few years, my office has been pleased with
    the CIS offerings and has taken advantage of them, perhaps more
    than many offices. My staff has been pleased with what the
    private sector has to offer. While many of my staff also use
    LIS, there are many weaknesses in LIS for one simple reason--
    LIS does not compete with other vendors and, therefore, does
    not have an incentive to be bigger, better, and faster than the
    competitors.
        This raises a key point. Several private sector companies
    already take legislative information and compile it into a
    searchable, online format. They are not simply taking
    information we generate and selling it back to us. They are
    adding value to it and we are paying for that. However, they
    also sell their service to private entities. Consequently, we
    are not covering the entire cost of their operation. We share
    it with all of their customers. This being the case, why is the
    Senate duplicating the efforts of the private sector?
        I also want to address concerns about Senate offices losing
    services they have come to rely on. For starters, there are
    several services which are offered by the private sector which
    are not offered by LIS. From detailed summaries and analysis of
    bills and committee hearings to extensive databases of
    periodicals and legal documents, the outside services offer a
    wealth of information that Senate offices depend on.
        I hope that as this process moves forward, the Sergeant at
    Arms, the Rules Committee, and the Secretary of the Senate will
    ensure that the Senate's staff and Members have the research
    tools they need while ensuring that our tax dollars are spent
    wisely.

        Senator Bennett. Our first witness is the Hon. Gary Sisco,
    Secretary of the Senate, and we want to welcome Mr. Tim
    Wineman, who took over the job of Financial Clerk last year
    after Stewart Balderson retired. Mr. Wineman, we recognize that
    this is your first hearing before the subcommittee in this
    position and we are delighted to have your willingness to serve
    in this position and look forward to hearing from you.
        The Secretary's budget request is $15.7 million. I note
    that this is the third year that Mr. Sisco has asked for a
    level budget, with only the adjustment for the mandatory cost
    of living increase. I recognize that there are often times when
    you cannot do that, but I am delighted that when you can do it,
    you do do it, and we appreciate you being here.
        So Mr. Sisco, we will hear from you, and you can introduce
    Mr. Wineman if he has information for us at the appropriate
    time.

                statement of gary sisco, secretary of the senate

        Mr. Sisco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here
    this morning and, as you indicated, Tim is here with me. Tim is
    the Financial Clerk and has been since last May 1, and I would
    note that in his capacity as Financial Clerk he has submitted
    to the committee a budget for the entire Senate. My testimony
    this morning will be targeted just to the budget of the
    Secretary of the Senate. Tim is also responsible for the
    financial management information system, or FMIS, that we will
    hear more about later.
        My full statement has been filed with the committee,
    including the annual reports of each of the 24 departments of
    our office. This morning I will be brief. I will include Y2K,
    our budget request, and then I would like to make a comment or
    two on the Capitol Visitor Center.
        Senator Bennett. Please.

                        fiscal year 2000 Budget request

        Mr. Sisco. First, the budget request. As you indicated, for
    the third year in a row we are proposing a budget that holds
    the line on administrative expenses and reflects an increase in
    the payroll area for the COLA only. In dollars, that is
    $15,713,000, $14,202,000 for salaries, and $1,511,000 for other
    expenses. It is an increase of $508,000, or 3.3 percent, over
    our fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $15,205,000.
        From an operational standpoint, that is our request. The
    two major projects that are ongoing are the financial
    management information system, or FMIS, which I just mentioned,
    that Tim is responsible for, and a legislative information
    system, or LIS.
        We will continue to be funded for those for the remainder
    of fiscal year 1999, and for 2000, using the existing budgets
    that we have, and I do not project the need to request any new
    money for these two projects in 1999, or 2000. The only
    possible request may be to reprogram some of the unused funds
    from the appropriations we have already been provided in the
    administrative area.

                                 Y2K compliance

        Now, to Y2K and the compliance status of the computers in
    the Office of the Secretary. While the Sergeant at Arms ensures
    Y2K compliance for all the computer equipment in the Senate,
    the Office of the Secretary has worked closely with the Office
    of the Sergeant at Arms to ensure, first, that FMIS and LIS are
    engineered from the beginning to be Y2K-compliant, and, second,
    that all other computers and systems used in the Office of the
    Secretary are Y2K-compliant.
        We are on course to replace, repair, or retire anything
    that is not fully compliant. Most of that work is already done,
    and the rest will be completed no later than the end of
    September.

                                      FMIS

        In terms of Y2K and the development of the FMIS, FMIS
    replaces a conglomeration of more than a dozen financial
    systems scattered throughout the Senate, none of which are Year
    2000 compliant, and provides a single Y2K-compliant financial
    management system for both the general ledger and for
    purchasing.
        Specifically, the KPMG Peat Marwick FAMIS 4.0 system, the
    financial accounting management information system, is the
    technology for the general ledger system, and KPMG's second
    package, called ADPICS 4.5, the advanced purchasing and
    inventory control system, is the purchasing system that we are
    using. These two software packages from KPMG are commercial
    off-the-shelf packages already in use in the Federal
    Government, and they are warranted by KPMG to be Y2K-compliant.
    Even though KPMG has warranted that, these systems are so
    important to our financial operations that we are going to do
    independent testing and verification over the summer, and we
    are now preparing to select an independent contractor to help
    us test those two systems to double-check and make sure that
    they are compliant.
        The new general ledger system is based on the standard
    general ledger of the Federal Government, and it converts the
    general ledger from a cash basis of accounting to an obligation
    and accrual-based accounting system. This is a mandate that has
    been there for a while. The system uses OMB object codes so
    that the budget authority and expenditures can be reported
    throughout the Senate and consistent with other Federal
    agencies, and FMIS will also deliver the capability to produce
    a consolidated audit of all financial statements for the entire
    Senate, beginning with fiscal year 2000. Again, that is part of
    our mandate.
        Tim and the Disbursing Office staff will also be upgrading
    the payroll system to Y2K compliance by the end of September,
    but they are not installing a new system. The payroll system
    will be made compliant by a software upgrade, which is the
    Integral 9.5 system. It is a Year 2000 compliant version of the
    Integral payroll system that is already used by the Disbursing
    Office. It is a proven product, already in use in a number of
    other places, and it also is warranted by the vendor.
        We have the original vendor installing the upgrade in the
    Disbursing Office, and it is being acceptance-tested at the
    present time, so we do not anticipate a problem there.

                                      LIS

        Shifting to the legislative information system, this also
    is a mandated system, with the objective of providing desktop
    access to the content and status of all Senate legislative
    information and supporting documents. Year 2000 compliance is
    being engineered, as a part of the LIS system development, by
    replacing the non-Y2K-compliant LEGIS system that the Senate
    has used for some time.
        To ensure that LIS meets the needs of all the Senate users,
    the LIS Project Office, which is comprised of personnel from
    the Secretary's Office, the Sergeant at Arms, the Library of
    Congress, KPMG, and a representative from the Rules and
    Administration Committee, has established a user group to
    collect the needs and priorities of the Senate offices. We sent
    out questionnaires and got feedback from those questionnaires,
    and major enhancements to the system have been based on the
    user feedback.
        For example, users can now perform detailed searches for
    particular amendments by amendment number, by bill number, by
    the date introduced, or by the Senate sponsor, and users can
    also now print entire amendments from their desks using their
    personal computers.
        We have all roll call votes from the 101st Congress to date
    available online for access by Senate staff through their
    personal computers.
        Our new LIS home page provides a link to a menu of the
    latest official committee scheduling and subcommittee
    scheduling reports. This makes it easier for committees to
    schedule hearings at times that avoid or reduce conflicts with
    meetings of other committees or subcommittees that have some of
    the same Senators as members. We have got all that computerized
    comprehensively for the first time.
        The new document management system, or DMS, of the LIS will
    replace the existing LEGIS system. The DMS will collect,
    manage, store, retrieve and report various types of data by
    tracking information in different formats from ``A'' to ``Z'',
    from ``A'', the time something is introduced into the
    legislative system, until ``Z'', when it goes to the National
    Archives.
        The DMS implementation phase is progressing and it will be
    finished in August of 1999. This schedule also allows time to
    complete the thorough testing that we began on February 26,
    1999. DMS end-to-end testing components have been identified
    and the LIS Project Office is actively addressing the Y2K
    compliance of the external interfaces.
        DMS will interface with the amendment tracking system. The
    committee scheduling systems--the other ones that I mentioned--
    and these interfaces will also be Y2K-compliant.
        The Office of the Secretary is providing training for the
    Senate clerks, systems administrators, and the end users. Since
    each audience has distinct needs, the training approach is
    highly customized. Every effort is being made to provide a
    comprehensive training program for the users of the new system.
        The successful implementation to date of these two systems,
    FMIS and LIS, has depended on the outstanding cooperation and
    dedication and funding of this committee along with many other
    organizations that are involved in one of the systems, or both
    of the systems, including the Rules Committee and the Office of
    the Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Member offices, and the
    committee offices, the Library of Congress and the
    Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office,
    and last but not least, the Government Printing Office. We have
    all worked together to get to this point in the development of
    FMIS and LIS.

                                 Other systems

        For other systems within the Secretary's Office, we have an
    information systems department that in conjunction with the
    Sergeant at Arms has made an assessment of the Y2K compliance
    of all other hardware and software within our office--that is,
    all non-FMIS and non-LIS systems, hardware and equipment. We
    have carefully thought through plans that are on course to
    replace or upgrade all of the noncompliant systems, systems
    programs and applications in a timely fashion.
        We began this process in May of 1998, with a detailed
    assessment by Mitretek, an outside firm, to look at all
    computer-related activity in conjunction with the Y2K Project
    Office of the Sergeant at Arms. The assessment was finished in
    December of 1998.
        During 1998, all of the personal computers within our
    office were updated or replaced with compliant hardware, and so
    from a hardware standpoint we are totally compliant.
        Even more importantly, the outdated network transfer method
    of transmitting the text of our legislation, and all the other
    work that we do in print, from the Capitol to the Government
    Printing Office has been replaced. Legislation is now
    transferred electronically to GPO via a Y2K-compliant gateway.
        The last major Y2K projects include a mainframe used by our
    stationery room and our gift shop, which is not a part of the
    Senate computer center. The mainframe will be replaced by
    servers. The Sergeant at Arms will provide Y2K-compliant
    hardware and software for the Office of Printing and Document
    Services, and this will be the last major replacement. That is
    on course for completion not later than the end of September
    1999.
        Further details on Y2K are in the full statement, in the
    information systems section of the annual reports.

                             Capitol visitor center

        The last topic I want to touch on is the Capitol Visitor
    Center. The 105th Congress took an important step by
    authorizing the visitor center and appropriating $100 million
    for the Architect of the Capitol to use for planning,
    engineering, and designing and to construct the visitor center.
        At that time, the best cost estimates of the Architect for
    building it, furnishing it, and finishing the exhibits and
    addressing security enhancements totaled $159 million. The
    legislation that was passed last year anticipated that the $100
    million would be supplemented by a private fundraising plan.
    The Secretary and the Clerk of the House were to develop that,
    and recommend it back to the Congress, and we have been working
    on that.
        We have had the Pew Charitable Trusts, which recently took
    the lead in giving and successfully raising funds to improve
    the Independence Mall region in Philadelphia, and which has
    contributed to many projects of major educational and cultural
    importance to the country, and other trusts and other
    individuals contact our two offices--that is, my office and the
    office of the Clerk of the House--and have offered on an
    unsolicited basis their financial support and expertise and
    other support to help with the Capitol Visitor Center project.
        With the level of interest in the visitor center that has
    been apparent, a private fundraising campaign could readily
    raise, in my opinion, $70 million.
        If you combine the $70 million and the $100 million that is
    appropriated, for a total of $170 million, that would cover the
    last best estimate of $159 million that the Architect provided
    last fall for the cost of the project, and would leave us an
    $11 million contingency.
        In addition, the Capitol Preservation Commission at the
    present time has a balance of $26.6 million, which was raised
    privately, and which could be made available for the visitor
    center project, if the commission voted for that and it were
    needed. And to the extent that a fundraising campaign raises
    more than what is needed for the initial cost, which I believe
    could be done, the excess could be reserved for expanded
    exhibits or for an endowment for long-term maintenance and
    future educational programs and new visitors' services. If we
    got aggressive in a fundraising campaign, we could even pay
    back the $100 million appropriation to the extent that was the
    will of the Congress.

                              prepared statements

        With the project being authorized for the first time, with
    the $100 million appropriation this past year, and with a
    successful fundraising campaign, the vision of the Senate for a
    modern visitor center to receive the public and provide
    accurate and complete information about the Congress and how it
    works, and to meet modern security requirements, is well within
    reach. I am committed to help fulfill this vision at the
    direction of the Senate, and work with the House to make a
    visitor center a reality.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any
    questions you might have.
        [The statements follow:]
                        Prepared Statement of Gary Sisco
                        fiscal year 2000 budget request
        As the Committee is aware, the Office of the Secretary has
    requested freeze-level budgets, except for (COLA's), each year since
    fiscal year 1997. The fiscal year 2000 request again maintains level
    funding, excluding inflation, even as the responsibilities and workload
    of the Office have become greater than ever.
        I respectfully propose an operational budget for the Office of the
    Secretary for fiscal 2000 of $15,713,000, consisting of $14,202,000 for
    salaries and $1,511,000 for expenses.
        The requested budget is an increase of $508,000, or 3.3 percent,
    over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $15,205,000. The entire
    increase is to the salaries side of the budget, and is accounted for by
    a projected cost of living adjustment (COLA), as follows: $104,000 for
    the annualization of the 1999 calendar year COLA (3.1 percent for
    October through December 1999); and $404,000 for the calendar year 2000
    COLA estimate (3.9 percent for January through September 2000).
        The amount requested for expenses is the same as the fiscal year
    1999 budget of $1,511,000, and this figure has been maintained for the
    past three fiscal years.
        While the Office of the Secretary has held the line on
    administrative expenses, the change in format adopted last year is
    carried forward and will be permanent. Before 1999, line items were
    based on expense categories (some for as little as $500). The fiscal
    year 1999 budget grouped expenses by department, using the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) object classification codes that are
    standard throughout the Federal Government. The new format is necessary
    for FMIS, and also facilitates management within the Office of the
    Secretary by making it easier to control the expenses incurred by the
    users in particular departments. There is no change from fiscal year
    1999 to fiscal year 2000 in the budget figures submitted by department.
        With the approval of the Committee on Appropriations, the Office of
    the Secretary has utilized administrative expense savings to help fund
    annual expenditures for the FMIS and LIS strategic planning
    initiatives. The Office of the Sergeant at Arms has also contributed to
    LIS. Utilizing existing budgetary resources has made it unnecessary to
    request additional funds for these mission-critical projects. FMIS and
    LIS will continue to be funded using existing budgetary resources to
    the greatest extent possible for the remainder of fiscal year 1999 and
    for fiscal year 2000.
               implementing the mandated systems of fmis and lis
        With respect to both systems, two points are key: (1) No new funds
    were requested for fiscal year 1999 or are requested for fiscal year
    2000; and (2) Year 2000 compliance is being engineered into the new
    systems.
    Financial Management Information System (FMIS)
        FMIS, a mandated update to the financial management systems of the
    Senate, is consolidating and replacing a conglomeration of stand-alone
    financial systems located throughout the Senate, none of them Year 2000
    compliant, with a single financial management system that is warranted
    to be Year 2000 compliant, while converting the general ledger from
    cash-basis accounting to obligation- and accrual-basis accounting based
    on the Standard General Ledger of the Federal Government, and having
    the capability to produce consolidated, auditable financial statements.
        The mandate is being implemented on schedule, the result of
    considerable effort by the entire staff of the Disbursing Office, many
    staff members of the Sergeant at Arms, and the primary outside
    contractor, KPMG Peat Marwick.
        There are four major phases of the FMIS strategic initiative:
    Replace, Rollout, Report, and Reengineer. The main components of the
    Replace phase include the replacement of the Disbursing Office general
    ledger system (DOVES), the upgrading of the Sergeant at Arms mainframe
    core financial system to support the financial management operation for
    the Senate on a single, Year 2000 compliant platform, and the
    replacement and deployment of an automated procurement system within
    the Offices of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms. These tasks were
    completed October 1, 1998.
        The selection of the Senate for the core financial and procurement
    systems are the KPMG Federal FAMIS 4.0 and ADPICS 4.5 products that are
    both warranted by KPMG to be Year 2000 compliant. Federal FAMIS
    (Financial Accounting Management Information System) is the general
    ledger system that replaces a conglomeration of more than a dozen
    existing systems. ADPICS (Advanced Purchasing and Inventory Control
    System) is an upgrade to the purchasing system used by the Sergeant at
    Arms, and replaces purchasing capabilities of several other systems
    throughout the Senate. The FAMIS and ADPICS products are being
    integrated so that the Senate may instantly record the procurement
    activity as a financial event on the general ledger. The ADPICS product
    is also being used as the front end voucher preparation system that
    will replace the systems currently being used by the Member Offices and
    Committees.
        The Rollout phase of FMIS involves the distribution of the
    financial and purchasing systems throughout Member Offices, Committees,
    and other administrative offices of the Senate. The two main tasks in
    this phase are the training of functional staff and technical support
    of the offices once they are online. The third phase of FMIS is Report,
    referring to financial reporting. The Disbursing Office has developed a
    classification structure that will enable entity level reporting and
    the general ledger structure necessary to create proprietary financial
    statements. One of the major tasks in the reporting phase is the
    development and integration of a fixed asset module that will provide
    timely asset valuation and allow the financial staff to depreciate the
    value of equipment used by the Senate. Another major reporting task is
    the complete revision of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate to
    extract data from FMIS more efficiently than was the case in previous
    systems. Development and distribution of financial reports to FMIS
    users will also be a major focus of the reporting phase of FMIS.
        The Reengineer phase will be the final phase of FMIS. Consistent
    with the strategic initiatives adopted by the Senate, the Disbursing
    Office intends to implement the FMIS vision for a secure, paperless,
    fully integrated financial system complete with signature
    authentication, optical scanning, storage and retrieval of documents.
        Several financial policy decisions have been made during the
    implementation that will have an immediate impact on the financial
    reporting capabilities of the Senate. The Disbursing Office has adopted
    the Standard General Ledger used by the Federal Government. This
    decision will enable the Senate to prepare standard financial
    statements consistent in form and content with other federal agencies.
    Also adopted is the object classification for expenditures of the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This decision will enable the
    categorization of budget authority and expenditure reporting
    consistently throughout the Senate and consistent with the other
    federal agencies.
        These changes are essential. In addition, however, to replacing
    non-Y2K systems, the Disbursing Office has had to replace a
    conglomeration of stand-alone financial systems located throughout the
    Senate. Member Offices currently utilize the SOAS99 system to prepare
    vouchers and Committees use the Senate Committee Expense Accounting
    System (SCEAS). These systems were developed internally by the Senate
    to provide offices with a front-end capability to create vouchers and
    track individual budgets and they were, for the most part, easy to use.
    The Disbursing Office, however, is carrying out the two-fold mandate of
    the Senate to: Implement a single financial management system with COTS
    technology that is Year 2000 compliant; and account for funds on the
    obligation and accrual basis, with the capability to produce auditable,
    consolidated financial statements.
        It was therefore necessary for the Senate to move in a new
    direction.
        The successful implementation of FMIS to date has depended on the
    outstanding cooperation and dedication of the Committee on
    Appropriations, the Committee on Rules and Administration, the Office
    of the Secretary, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, and the Member
    and Committee offices.
    Legislative Information System (LIS)
        LIS is a mandated system (2 U.S.C. 123e) with the objective of
    providing desktop access to the content and status of all Senate
    legislative information and supporting documents.
        One of the early accomplishments in the LIS project was the 1997
    implementation of an Amendment Tracking System (ATS). This system
    enables the Bill Clerk to scan floor amendments as received at the
    desk. Within twenty minutes, Senators and staff can view the text of an
    amendment from their personal computers. During the past year, this
    system had two major enhancements implemented. These enhancements offer
    status and statements of purpose when provided by the sponsors and
    enable users to perform detailed searches for particular amendments by
    amendment number, bill number, date introduced, or sponsor. System
    reliability was improved and a method was implemented for easier
    printing of the entire amendment (a frequently requested requirement).
    During the coming year, the Amendment Tracking System will be
    interfaced with the new Document Management System that is being
    implemented as a core component of LIS.
        An anecdote related by a staffer tells how ATS has proven to be
    timely, accurate, and authoritative: The staffer had received a copy of
    an amendment via fax from one of the policy groups, but when the
    staffer printed it from the LIS Amendment Tracking System, it was clear
    that the faxed version was already out of date. (On their way to
    delivering amendments to the clerks, Senators sometimes make
    handwritten changes.) ATS provided a timely and accurate scanned
    photographic reproduction of the amendment copy as the Senator filed
    it.
        Also in 1998, a new Committee Scheduling application was developed
    and implemented, replacing the old, difficult to use system. The
    committee scheduling capability enables the Daily Digest Office to
    better schedule committee and subcommittee meetings and to allow all
    Senate users to retrieve information about committee meetings and
    hearings. Reports available from the new system include: Today's
    Meetings/Hearings, Scheduled Meetings/Hearings, Member's Individual
    Schedules, Specific Committee Schedules and Conflicts, and Combined
    Schedules for Members of a Specific Committee. The web-browser
    implementation provides convenient access from all Senate user PC's. In
    the coming year, the Committee Scheduling application will be
    interfaced with the new Document Management System.
        The LIS Document Management System (DMS) development began in
    August 1998. The DMS is to provide a central repository for all Senate
    information including legislation and support documentation. The system
    will collect, manage, store, retrieve, and report various types of data
    by providing accessibility, management, and tracking of information in
    various formats. The LIS DMS, by transmitting data to the Library of
    Congress retrieval system, will serve a wide user base, often with
    different, and sometimes unique, sets of requirements: clerks of the
    Secretary of the Senate, Senate Library, Senate members and staff, the
    House of Representatives, Library of Congress, Congressional Research
    Service, Government Printing Office, and the public. The primary
    objective of Phase I, initiated in 1998 and to be completed in June,
    1999, is to deliver a Year 2000 functional replacement for the existing
    LEGIS system with the ability to support document attributes, external
    interfaces, legacy data conversion, and reporting. Phase II, also to be
    completed in 1999, is to incorporate textural data and ad hoc reporting
    in the DMS. Interfaces to the Senate Amendment Tracking System and the
    Committee Scheduling System are to be established.
        As the Legislative Information System and Document Management
    System (LIS/DMS) are intended to serve varied groups of users, many
    with unique requirements, the Office of the Secretary and Senate Office
    of Education and Training provide LIS training with the primary
    objective to prepare Senate staff to test, use, maintain, and support
    the LIS/DMS. Training is provided for Senate clerks, system
    administrators, and end users; since each audience has distinct needs,
    the training approach is highly customized. It might be noted here that
    although every effort is being made toward a comprehensive training
    program, many end users have reported that the LIS is so ``user-
    friendly'' and the published materials are so helpful that they do not
    feel the need to take time from the job to attend training sessions.
    Y2K compliance
        The Sergeant at Arms ensures Year 2000 compliance in the Senate.
    The Office of the Secretary can report, however, that Y2K compliance is
    being engineered in the FMIS and LIS strategic initiatives, and that a
    Y2K assessment has been made of all other hardware and software within
    the Office, with a schedule in place to complete the timely replacement
    or upgrade of all non-compliant systems, programs, and applications.
        The FMIS project, as noted above, is consolidating and replacing a
    conglomeration of stand-alone financial systems located throughout the
    Senate, none of which was Year 2000 compliant, with a single financial
    management system that is warranted to be Year 2000 compliant. The
    current FMIS applications presently used in the Disbursing Office and
    the Sergeant at Arms consist of two modules, FAMIS and ADPICS, that the
    vendor, KPMG, has warranted compliant. Y2K compliance will be verified
    in early summer, 1999, through independent testing, e.g, by a non-KPMG
    consultant.
        Separately, FMIS will ensure that the Senate payroll system is Year
    2000 compliant through an upgrade of the existing software supplied by
    the original vendor. The upgrade package is the Integral 9.5 version of
    its package now in use. With the upgrade package, Integral supplies
    step-by-step instructions, and the vendor thoroughly tested the package
    before released to its customers. Y2K conversion of the payroll is now
    in acceptance testing, and will be completed before October 1, 1999.
        The LIS project, now composed of the Amendment Tracking, Committee
    Scheduling, and Document Management systems, will replace the current
    LEGIS mainframe application in August, 1999. Y2K compliance will be
    ensured by the system replacement.
        Other Y2K projects now underway in the Office of the Secretary,
    scheduled for completion no later than the end of summer, 1999, include
    the replacement hardware and software for the Office of Printing and
    Document Services, and the mainframe replacement for the Stationery
    Room and Gift Shop.
        The Office of the Secretary Information Systems Department, in
    conjunction with the Sergeant at Arms Y2K Project Office, has assessed
    Y2K readiness and compliance for all existing hardware and software
    systems installed in this Office. This process began in May, 1998, with
    a detailed assessment by the Mitretek Group of all computer-related
    activity. The assessment, completed in December, provides a detailed
    risk analysis of the mission critical functions. During this same time
    frame, and in parallel with the assessment, all personal computers
    within the Office were updated or replaced with compliant hardware.
    Even more importantly, the outdated network transfer method of
    transmitting the text of legislation from the Capitol to the Government
    Printing Office was replaced. Legislation is now transferred
    electronically to GPO via Y2K-compliant gateways.
        Further details regarding Y2K compliance within the Office of the
    Secretary may be found in the attached annual reports submitted by the
    departments. Every step in ensuring Y2K compliance within the Office of
    the Secretary is taken in conjunction with the Sergeant at Arms.
                      personnel challenges for the future
        As discussed in the reports for the last two years, there are
    positions in the Office of the Secretary--particularly but not
    exclusively within the legislative departments--that are essential to
    the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate, and that require
    institutional knowledge and experience to master, but have little
    comparability to executive-branch or private-sector occupations. Those
    positions that especially depend on institutional knowledge and
    experience will always present the Senate with a major challenge.
        The past twelve months have seen the death of the Legislative
    Clerk, and the actual or announced retirements of the Financial Clerk,
    the Journal Clerk, the Executive Clerk, the Daily Digest Editor, the
    Chief Reporter of Debates, and the Director of the Office of Printing
    and Document Services.
        In all cases, the Office of the Secretary has maintained and will
    continue to maintain the essential functions that these departments
    perform. All of these positions have been filled with highly capable
    individuals, and there are now no vacancies in any department head
    position, nor in any deputy position. This depth is creditable to the
    concrete steps taken in past years to identify incumbent employees and
    prospective new hires who are highly qualified, appropriately
    experienced, and committed to the Senate for the long term to meet the
    high professional standards the Senate requires and to become qualified
    to assume greater responsibilities.
        The Office of the Secretary intends to continue to focus on skill
    development, under which highly qualified employees are offered
    opportunities to learn additional skills. This focus is to ensure that
    there are trained resources in every function, that all of the
    legislative departments are fully staffed by individuals who have
    significant on-the-job training and experience, and that the careers of
    at least two individuals are developed with the potential to succeed to
    each department head responsibility. Through the development of
    additional skills, these individuals may come from within or without
    the specific departments that they may be asked to head.
        The above objectives are being accomplished within personnel
    authorizations. The Disbursing Office expects soon to add approximately
    ten new positions to assist in implementation of FMIS and the
    restructuring of its functional units that are responsible for
    financial management, but even with these positions, the Office of the
    Secretary will remain below the 241 to 252 positions authorized by this
    Committee for fiscal year 1999.
                     vision for the capitol visitor center
        The heroism of Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, who died
    last summer while preserving the lives of Members, staff and visitors,
    brought renewed attention to the need to go forward with the Capitol
    Visitor Center project to address both security needs and enhance the
    educational experience for visitors.
        The 105th Congress appropriated $100,000,000 to the Architect of
    the Capitol for the planning, engineering, design, and construction of
    the Capitol Visitor Center. [Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus
    Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.]
    These funds may not be spent, however, until approved by the
    appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees of both the Senate
    and the House. Additionally, these funds, which are available until
    expended, are to be supplemented by private fund-raising.
        While the Architect of the Capitol is charged with the planning,
    engineering, design, and construction of the Visitor Center, the Office
    of the Secretary, in conjunction with the Office of the Clerk of the
    House of Representatives, has undertaken responsibility for
    recommending a plan for the private fund-raising efforts. At the
    request of the Majority Leader, I have also offered my assistance to
    the Architect, as appropriate, to facilitate and expedite completion of
    the Visitor Center.
        With regard to private fund-raising efforts, the existing Capitol
    Preservation Fund has a balance derived from private funds of about
    $26,600,000, which could be made available for the Visitor Center
    project. The Office of the Secretary (along with the Office of the
    Clerk of the House of Representatives) is currently evaluating the most
    appropriate means for raising up to $70,000,000 in additional private
    funds. Funds raised over and above the costs of construction and
    initial furnishing, currently estimated at $159,000,000, could be
    reserved for long-term maintenance and future educational programs and
    visitor services.
        The Pew Charitable Trusts (which recently took the lead in
    successfully raising funds to improve the Independence Mall region in
    Philadelphia and which has contributed to many projects of major
    educational and cultural importance) and other trusts, individuals, and
    corporations are eager to provide support. Staff of the Secretary and
    Clerk are also evaluating the need to establish a 501(c)(3) entity to
    conduct the fund-raising.
        For nearly 200 years, the Capitol has stood as the greatest visible
    symbol of representative democracy in the world. As the workplace of
    the elected representatives of the people, the Capitol is--and must
    remain--a working office building, a museum, and an open tourist
    center. Since 1859, when the present Senate and House wings of the
    Capitol were completed, the Nation has undergone tremendous growth.
    With that growth, our citizens visit in increasing numbers each year.
    The nineteenth-century design does not and cannot accommodate the
    numbers, either in terms of providing information about how Congress
    carries out its constitutional responsibilities, or in terms of meeting
    modern security requirements, an issue that the Sergeant at Arms and
    the Architect of the Capitol, as members of the Capitol Police Board,
    have spoken to in previous hearings before this Committee.
        As all know, during peak season, from March through August,
    visitors face excessively long lines, with little shelter from the
    Washington summer's heat and humidity. (The Office of the Attending
    Physician has reported providing emergency treatment to more than a
    dozen visitors a week for heat-induced illness.) While it is sufficient
    to say that entry to the Capitol should not have to be an endurance
    test, it is equally apparent that the visit itself must be made more
    informative and enjoyable. Visitors face congested corridors and a lack
    of basic facilities such as restrooms and water fountains. Exhibits are
    few, and many priceless documents and artifacts of America's history
    are not on public display. Tours are crowded and abbreviated; during
    the summer, tours do not see either the Senate or House Chambers. There
    is no information center to inform visitors about the Capitol and the
    history and constitutional role of Congress, or simply to help visitors
    find their Member offices, and there are few suitable rooms for Members
    to meet with visiting groups of constituents.
        With the $100,000,000 appropriation this past year, and a
    successful $70,000,000 fund-raising campaign, the vision of the Senate
    for a modern Visitor Center to receive the public, provide accurate and
    complete information about Congress, and meet security requirements is
    well within reach. The entire Office of the Secretary is committed to
    helping to fulfill this vision and make it a reality sooner.
                               impeachment trial
        Throughout the trial of the impeachment of President William
    Jefferson Clinton, the Office of the Secretary carried out
    extraordinary responsibilities while maintaining day-to-day services.
        In advance of the trial, the Sergeant at Arms and I prepared a
    memorandum for the Senate leadership concerning arrangements for the
    trial.
        During the trial, the Legislative Clerks read aloud the texts of
    matters pending on the floor, called the roll, and maintained vote
    tallies, and performed other duties unique to the trial, such as the
    logging and storage of evidentiary material. The Journal Clerk
    maintained The Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate for the
    Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
    States as required by the Constitution and Senate Rules. The
    impeachment journal will be a vitally important official resource for
    the Senate and for legal scholars and historians. The Parliamentarian
    advised the Chief Justice and the Senate on the Rules of Procedure and
    Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials and the
    Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States
    Senate. The Official Reporters of Debates kept a stenographic record
    throughout the trial and prepared the transcripts for printing in the
    Congressional Record. By unanimous consent, Senators were permitted to
    insert their own closed remarks in the Record, insert prepared
    statements, or add additions to closed session remarks, all of which
    were processed by the Official Reporters.
        The Office of Senate Security provided a secure conference room for
    conduct of depositions, and took receipt of all deposition transcripts
    and videotapes from the contractors that produced them. Printing and
    Document Services handled the distribution of the 29 printed volumes of
    trial materials, containing a total of 15,756 pages. That office had to
    obtain temporary space provided by the Rules and Administration
    Committee to store the documents. The office will subsequently, of
    course, distribute the full proceedings ordered printed as a Senate
    Document. The Senate Historical Office developed an inventory of
    official records presented to the Senate in compliance with the
    impeachment trial rule, and the office will identify for preservation
    and eventual public access all substantive trial-related records and
    provide for their orderly transfer to the National Archives. The
    Historical Office will also produce an oral history, based on
    interviews with the trial's key participants, and A Documentary History
    of United States Senate Impeachment Trials, 1798-1999, that will
    present a chronology of key dates, a brief history of the issues that
    led to the trial, and the abridged text of key documents for each of
    the Senate's seventeen impeachment trials.
        The budget summary and apportionment schedule, and the compilation
    of annual reports submitted by the Office of the Secretary departments,
    follow.
                                     ______

    Office of the Secretary of the Senate Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Summary,
            Apportionment Schedule, and Departmental Annual Reports

                                 BUDGET SUMMARY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Amount       Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 1999:
        Payroll Budget............................      13,694,000      90.1
        Operating Expense Budget..................       1,511,000       9.9
                                                   -------------------------
          Total...................................      15,205,000     100.0
                                                   =========================
    Suggested Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request:
        Payroll Budget............................      14,202,000      90.4
        Operating Expense Budget..................       1,511,000       9.6
                                                   -------------------------
          Total...................................      15,713,000     100.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Amount
                                        available      Budget
                                       fiscal year    estimate
                   Item                    1999     fiscal year   Difference
                                       (Public Law      2000
                                         105-275)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Executive Office.................     $718,100     $718,100  ...........
    Administrative Services..........      463,800      463,800  ...........
    Legislative and Legal Services...      329,100      329,100  ...........
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................    1,511,000    1,511,000  ...........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Departmental Annual Reports
                            Legislative Departments
                                   bill clerk
        The Bill Clerk records official actions of the Senate, keeps an
    authoritative historical record of Senate business, enters daily
    legislative activities and votes into the automated legislative status
    system, and prints all introduced, submitted and reported legislation.
    In addition, this office assigns numbers to all bills and resolutions.
    Legislative Activity
        The legislative materials processed by the Bill Clerk during the
    105th Congress are as follows:

    Senate Bills...................................................... 2,655
    Senate Joint Resolutions..........................................    60
    Senate Concurrent Resolutions.....................................   130
    Senate Resolutions................................................   314
    Amendments Submitted.............................................. 3,820
    House Bills.......................................................   507
    House Joint Resolutions...........................................    31
    House Concurrent Resolutions......................................    98
    Measures Reported.................................................   621
    Roll Call Votes...................................................   612
    Relations with GPO
        The Government Printing Office has responded in a timely manner to
    the Bill Clerk's request for the printing of bills and reports,
    including the printing of priority matters for the floor. The record on
    specific GPO printings for the second session is summarized below:
      --Star Prints: The number of Star Prints (reprints) authorized was
            14.
      --``Bates List'': Overnight rush printing was ordered on 29 pieces of
            legislation.
      --At the end of the Second Session, 64 House passed measures were at
            the desk. In the past the bill clerk would print these bills as
            ``Received'' with the required quantity for each of 800 copies.
            The exact language in now available on the web as a House
            engrossed bill, so these bills were not printed, resulting in a
            savings to the Senate of approximately $51,230.05.
    Legislative Information System (LIS)
        LEGIS: The office continued working with KPMG and the Senate
    Computer Center reviewing the legislative information processed by this
    office, including reviewing vote and some data input screens.
        Amendment Scanning: During the second session of the 105th Congress
    the final Amendment Tracking System (ATS) was finalized. All Senate
    staff can view a copy of all proposed pending amendments of 25 pages or
    less.
                                  daily digest
        The Daily Digest section of the Congressional Record provides a
    concise accounting of all official actions taken by the Senate on a
    particular day. All Senate hearings and business meetings (including
    joint meetings and conferences) are scheduled through the Daily Digest,
    reported on daily, and are published in the Congressional Record.
    Chamber Activity
        The Senate was in session a total of 143 days, for a total of 1,095
    hours and 5 minutes. There were 4 quorum calls and 314 record votes.
    Committee Activity
        Senate committees held 711 hearings and 172 business meetings
    (total 883), contrasted with 552 hearings and 184 business meetings
    (total 736) during the Second Session of the 104th Congress.
        All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and
    conferences) are scheduled through the Office of the Senate Daily
    Digest and are published in the Congressional Record and are entered in
    the mainframe-based legis system (currently being replaced by a web-
    based applications system). Meeting outcomes are also published by the
    Daily Digest in the Congressional Record each day.
    Government Printing Office
        The Daily Digest continues to send the complete publication at the
    end of each day to the Government Printing Office electronically. The
    Digest also continues the practice of sending a disk along with a
    duplicate hard copy to GPO, even though GPO receives the Digest copy by
    electronic transfer long before hand delivery is completed, adding to
    the timeliness of publishing the Congressional Record. The Digest
    continues to discuss with GPO problems encountered with the printing of
    the Daily Digest section. Corrections or transcript errors have become
    very infrequent due to the ability of electronic transfer.
    Staff Changes
        The Daily Digest announces the retirement of Thomas G. Pellikaan,
    Editor, and the promotion of Linda E. Sebold to the position of Editor.
                                enrolling clerk
        The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, and prints all
    Senate passed legislation prior to its transmittal to the House of
    Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of State, the
    United States Claims Court, and the White House.
        During 1998, 91 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and
    11 concurrent resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared,
    printed, proofread, corrected, and printed on parchment.
        A total of 521 additional pieces of legislation was passed or
    agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing from this office.
        New computers installed in early 1998 doubled the speed at which
    bill pages are composed. The data retrieval system was changed during
    the year so that the office can now pull the bill files from the
    Government Printing Office (GPO) by FTP via the Internet, and, rather
    than going through GPO for Legislative Counsel files, the office can
    retrieve them directly from the Legislative Counsel computer storage
    area with a direct internet connection. This has greatly improved
    retrieval speed for the necessary files.
                                executive clerk
        The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by
    the Senate during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and
    treaties) which is published as the Executive Journal at the end of
    each session of Congress. The Executive Clerk also prepares daily the
    Executive Calendar as well as all nomination and treaty resolutions for
    transmittal to the President.
    Nominations
        During the Second Session of the 105th Congress, there were 648
    nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting
    20,225 nominations to positions requiring Senate confirmation and 27
    messages withdrawing nominations previously sent to the Senate during
    the session. Of the total nominations transmitted, 336 were for
    civilian positions other than lists in the Foreign Service, Coast Guard
    and Public Health Service. In addition, there were 1,532 nominees in
    the ``civilian list'' categories named above. Military nominations
    received this session totaled 18,443 (6,070 in the Air Force, 5,479 in
    the Army, 5,047 in the Navy and 1,847 in the Marine Corps). The Senate
    confirmed 20,302 nominations this session and 133 nominations were
    returned to the President pursuant to the provisions of paragraph six
    of Senate Rule XXI at the sine die adjournment of the 105th Congress.
    Treaties
        There were 26 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President
    during the second session of the 105th Congress for its advice and
    consent to ratification, which were ordered printed as treaty documents
    for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 105-33 through 105-58).
        The Senate gave its advice and consent to 53 treaties with various
    conditions, declarations, understandings and provisos to the
    resolutions of advice and consent to ratification.
    Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes
        There were 12 executive reports relating to treaties ordered
    printed for the use of the Senate during the second session of the
    105th Congress (Executive Reports 105-14 through 105-25). The Senate
    conducted twenty-nine roll call votes in an executive session, 17 on or
    in relation to nominations and 12 on amendments to and final passage of
    the NATO Accession Treaty.
    Executive Communications
        In April, the responsibility for executive communications,
    petitions and memorials sent to the Senate by the executive branch,
    state legislatures, local governments, organizations and/or citizens
    were placed under the direction of the Executive Clerk. The growth in
    the number of these items has increased exponentially, requiring the
    addition of a full-time clerk to process them. Due to the reporting of
    a vacancy requirement of Public Law 105-77, the number of
    communications for the 106th and future Congresses will continue to
    increase dramatically. From April through the end of the Second
    Session, 3,125 or 41 percent of all executive communications received
    during the 105th Congress, and 182 petitions and memorials were
    processed by the new clerk. Also during this period, the writing of the
    abstracts for the Congressional Record was adapted and improved to
    better serve the needs of the agencies, GAO, and the National Archives.
    Development of the new LIS
        The staff has consulted regularly with KPMG and the Senate Computer
    Center concerning the development of the portion of the new LIS
    pertaining to the processing of nominations and treaties. In addition,
    staff have been meeting regularly with the CRS staff at the Library of
    Congress charged with developing the retrieval system for the new LIS
    database, and have spent many hours explaining the processing
    procedures of the nominations and treaties in the Senate to help them
    develop the best possible systems for in put and retrieval.
    Staff Changes
        The Executive Clerk's Office announces the retirement of David G.
    Marcos as Executive Clerk and the promotion of Michelle Haynes to that
    position.
                                 journal clerk
        The Journal Clerk takes notes of the daily legislative proceedings
    of the Senate in the ``Minute Book'' and prepares a history of bills
    and resolutions for the printed Senate Journal that is in effect the
    index of legislative action. The Senate Journal is published each
    calendar year.
        The office is responsible, pursuant to its constitutional duties
    and under the provisions of the Senate rules, to produce The Journal of
    the Proceedings of the Senate for the Impeachment of William Jefferson
    Clinton, President of the United States, in addition to the regular
    Senate Journal, for this year of 1999.
        The 1998 volume will go to the Government Printing Office for
    distribution in the spring of this year. The completion of the 1998
    Journal will not affect the progress of the two Journals for 1999.
    Staff Changes
        The Journal Clerk's Office announces the retirement of William D.
    Lackey, Jr., as Journal Clerk and the promotion of Patrick Keating to
    that position.
                               legislative clerk
        The Legislative Clerk sits at the Secretary's desk in the Senate
    Chamber and reads aloud bills, amendments, the Senate Journal,
    Presidential messages, and other such materials when so directed by the
    Presiding Officer of the Senate. The Legislative Clerk calls the roll
    of members to establish the presence of a quorum and to record and
    tally all yea and nay votes. This office prepares the Senate Calendar
    of Business, published each day that the Senate is in session, and
    prepares additional publications relating to Senate class membership
    and committee and subcommittee assignments. The Legislative Clerk
    maintains the official copy of all measures pending before the Senate
    and must incorporate into those measures any amendments that are agreed
    to. This office retains custody of official messages received from the
    House of Representatives and conference reports awaiting action by the
    Senate. This office is also responsible for verifying the accuracy of
    that information entered into the LEGIS system by the various offices
    of the Secretary. In addition, this office is very involved in the
    Secretary's multi-year, comprehensive program to redesign and rebuild
    the Senate's system for the collection and management of its
    Legislative Information Services (LIS).
    Summary of Activity
        The Second Session of the 105th Congress completed its legislative
    business and adjourned on October 21, 1998. During 1998, the Senate was
    in session for 1,095 hours over 143 days and conducted 314 roll call
    votes. There were 363 measures reported from committees, 506 total
    measures passed, and there were 246 items remaining on the Calendar at
    the time of adjournment. In addition, there were 2,180 amendments
    submitted.
    Legislative Information System (LIS)
        When LIS replaces the current LEGIS system, extensive training and
    retraining will be required to convert from the current mainframe to a
    document management system (DMS). As staff become more familiar with
    the new capabilities LIS will provide, there may be added benefits such
    as a history of legislation in the Calendar of Business, which could
    then be included in the Journal at the end of each session.
    Amendment Scanning
        In 1997, the Secretary's office began scanning certain pending
    amendments to Senate offices. The main concern was, and continues to
    be, that there be little or no disruption in the way an amendment is
    processed and distributed on the Senate floor. In 1998, the office
    implemented improvements to the amendment scanning system which
    resulted in faster scanning to a wider audience and reduced keyboarding
    by the Bill Clerks. Undoubtedly, this project will need to undergo
    further enhancements as the LIS project progresses.
    Staff Changes
        The Senate tragically lost R. Scott Bates (1948-1999) on February
    5, 1999. David Tinsley was promoted to the position of Legislative
    Clerk.
                    office of official reporters of debates
        The Official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit for publication
    in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the
    proceedings of the Senate, and serve as liaison for all Senate
    personnel on matters relating to the content of the Record. The
    transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation are
    transmitted, in hard copy and electronically, throughout the day to the
    Government Printing Office. The Chief Reporter functions as editor in
    chief and the Coordinator functions as technical production editor of
    the Senate portion of the Record.
    Accomplishments
        The Official Reporters continue to use the computer-aided
    transcription system, and have experimented with new software
    throughout the year. As noted in previous reports, the workload of this
    office has not decreased but, by providing GPO electronic as well as
    paper copy, the overall workload at GPO (i.e., not having to rekey
    every word this office transmits to them) is reduced and, as a result,
    the overall production cost of the Record.
    Morning Business
        The Morning Business Unit has dealt effectively with a marked
    increase of items being processed through their office. The number of
    communications has continued to increase since the passage of Public
    Law 104-121 (the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996).
    Goals
        The goals for the coming year include: increasing the volume of
    electronic submissions to GPO by continually informing and educating
    staff of the e-mail process and the proper format and deadlines for
    submitting statements; adapting the new LIS system to daily operation;
    continuing to cross-train transcribers in the tasks performed by the
    Coordinator; and and experimenting with new software for the Reporters.
    Cost Savings
        The office continues to save substantial sums by eliminating
    duplication in printing, and Senators are consistently informed about
    the two-page rule.
                                parliamentarian
        The Parliamentarian advises the Chair, Senators and their staff as
    well as committee staff, House members and their staffs, administration
    officials, the media and members of the general public on all matters
    requiring an interpretation of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the
    precedents of the Senate, unanimous consent agreements, as well as
    provisions of public law affecting the proceedings of the Senate. The
    Office of the Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral of all
    legislation introduced in the Senate, all legislation received from the
    House, as well as all communications received from the executive
    branch. The office worked extensively with Senators and their staffs to
    advise them of the jurisdictional consequences of particular drafts of
    legislation, and evaluated the jurisdictional effect of proposed
    modifications in drafting.
        The office continues to analyze and advise Senators on a great
    number of issues arising under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    The Byrd Rule on extraneous matter in reconciliation bills can cause a
    great deal of parliamentary maneuvering.
        The atmosphere that surrounded the parliamentary process in 1998
    resulted in an unprecedented number of questions that this office was
    asked to resolve. These questions often required hours of very
    difficult and contentious meetings with competing groups of staff. At
    every stage of the budget cycle, this office was called upon to
    arbitrate large numbers of budget and appropriation related questions.
    The Parliamentarian's Office was constantly asked to answer questions
    during consideration on the Senate floor, of the budget resolution and
    the appropriations bill that followed.
        Concerns about the use of the budget surplus promises to keep the
    congressional budget process (with all of its parliamentary complexity)
    in the forefront of the legislative agenda.
                         printing and document services
        Printing and Document Services documents Senate printing expenses
    and functions as GPO liaison to schedule and/or distribute Senate bills
    and reports to the Chamber, Senate staff, and the public; provides page
    counts of Senate hearings to commercial reporting companies, orders and
    tracks all paper and envelopes provided the Senate, provides general
    printing services for Senate offices, and assures that Senate printing
    is in compliance with Title 44, U.S. Code, as it relates to Senate
    documents, hearings, committee prints, and other official publications.
    Total Publications
        During the second session of the 105th Congress, 647 publications
    (hearings, committee prints, Senate documents, Senate Publications)
    were printed. This compares with 504 publications printed during the
    second session of the 104th Congress, or an increase of about 28
    percent.
    Hearings Transcripts and Billing Verifications
        Billing Verifications are the vehicle by which reporting companies
    request payment from a committee for their transcription services.
    During 1998, commercial reporting companies and the corresponding
    Senate committees were provided a total of 919 billing verifications of
    Senate hearings and business meetings (including hearings which were
    canceled or postponed, but still requiring payment to the reporting
    company). This averages 38 hearings/meetings per committee. Compared
    with 1,105 billing verifications in 1997, there was a decrease of about
    17 percent in the number of hearings processed.
        Commercial reporting companies charged the Senate approximately
    $447,268 to prepare 69,855 transcript pages of the spoken portions of
    Senate hearings (compared to 1997 figures of $585,956 to prepare 89,020
    transcribed pages) for an average annual cost of about $18,636 per
    committee, and an average of 2,910 spoken transcript pages per
    committee during 1998. In 1997, the average annual cost per committee
    was $29,903, and an average of 4,239 spoken transcript pages.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Percent
                                                                           1997            1998          Increase/
                                                                                                         Decrease
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Billing Verifications...........................................           1,105             919             -17
    Transcribed Pages...............................................          89,020          69,855             -22
    Average Pages/Committee.........................................           4,239           2,910             -31
    Transcribed Pages Cost..........................................        $585,956        $447,268             -24
    Average Cost/Committee..........................................         $29,903         $18,636             -38
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requisitions
        Printing and Document Services prepared 5,564 printing requisitions
    during fiscal year 1998, authorizing GPO to print Senate work,
    exclusive of legislation and the Record. This is a decrease of about 6
    percent over fiscal year 1997.
    Paper, Letterhead, and Envelopes
        Printing and Document Services provides and maintains an accounting
    of blank paper, letterheads, and envelopes for all Senate offices. The
    total blank sheets and letterheads ordered in 1998 were about 99.2
    million sheets, a decrease of 3.3 million sheets compared to 1997. In
    1998, the Senate used about 8.4 million envelopes, compared to 7.9
    million in 1997.
    Mini Document Room
        Printing and Document Services serves the combined leadership by
    coordinating the distribution of all Senate-introduced and Calendar
    bills, reports, resolutions, and conference reports, including all
    legislation which has passed the House. Distribution is made to the
    Chamber, the Office of the Secretary, and leadership offices. Data
    entry to the legislation and DocuTech databases is the responsibility
    of this section.
    Cost Accounting Projects and Duties
        In addition to the ability to advise offices about turnaround and
    the method of reproduction, while assuring compliance with Title 44
    U.S.C., Printing and Document Services also provides accounting
    information needed by offices. Ultimately, this data enables the
    Secretary to provide oversight information to the Rules Committee and
    the Joint Committee on Printing.
    The Service Center
        The Service Center (located in SH-B-07) is staffed by experienced
    GPO printing specialists who provide Senate committees and the Office
    of the Secretary with complete publishing services for hearings,
    committee prints, and preparation of the Congressional Record. Services
    include keyboarding, proofreading, scanning, and composition.
        As a result of these services, committees have been able to
    decrease and/or eliminate overtime costs associated with the
    preparation of hearings, and can now publish in a more timely manner.
    Committees may also realize additional savings because the work done in
    the Service Center is chargeable to the committee as performed (as
    opposed to having a full-time staff member or detailee assigned to
    printing functions). Finally, by providing the ability to process what
    would otherwise be backlogged work, utilization of the Service Center
    may preclude the need to assign additional staff or GPO detailees to
    publishing duties.
        During 1998, the Service Center assisted 14 committees with the
    preparation of 138 hearings, committee prints, and Senate Documents
    including the tributes to Senators Ford, Bumpers, Kempthorne, Glenn,
    and Coats. This represents over half of all Senate committees which
    have printing responsibilities. Looked at from another perspective, the
    Service Center has assisted with about 21 percent of the publications
    printed in 1998.
    Congressional Record
        In 1998, 12,730 pages were printed for the Senate, 14,622 pages
    were printed for the House (includes Digest, Extension of Remarks,
    Proceedings, and Miscellaneous pages), for a total of 27,975 pages.
    This is a total of 683 more pages than in 1997.
        There were a total of 1.4 million copies printed and distributed in
    1998. That includes 295,323 to the Senate, 241,945 to the House, and
    827,732 to Executive Branch agencies and the public at large.
        Total approximate cost to produce the Record was $14 million. Based
    upon the per cent of content and distribution quantities, the
    proportional Senate cost was $6.3 million, the House was $6.9 million,
    and all other recipients $800,000. Per copy cost was about $8.86
    (Record costs are based upon GPO estimated appropriation costs, not
    including costs to produce the Record Index or microfiche copies).
    Legislation
        Data is captured regarding all printed versions of all measures
    considered in the Senate. Beginning this Congress, all versions and
    distribution of House measures are included. For brevity, the following
    information is summarized by major category of legislation, such as
    Senate bills. Each category includes the successive versions in which
    all measures were printed during their legislative cycle (such as a
    Senate bill which is introduced, reported, and printed as passed),
    including star prints. Information relating to specific versions of all
    legislation is available, as is the additional number of copies ordered
    printed for the Document Room (see Docutech Project) and committees.
        The following table is for the second session of the 105th
    Congress. The Number of Pages column refers to the number of original
    pages, including blanks, within the categories listed. The total number
    of printed pages is not shown, but is available. Costs are rounded to
    the nearest hundred, and are based upon estimated GPO appropriation
    rates.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number
                               Measure                              Count   of Pages    Senate Cost     Total Cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Bills................................................     1,448    30,334       1.900,000       2,800,000
    Senate Reports..............................................       256    10,186         736,100         933,100
    Sen. Res....................................................       200       556          42,200          58,200
    S.J. Res....................................................        34       148          10,100          15,000
    S.Con. Res..................................................        89       376          22,800          37,600
    House Bills.................................................     2,312    39,947       1,500,000       6,100,000
    H. J. Res...................................................        50       152           4,250          16,300
    H. Con. Res.................................................       209       736          19,600          76,500
    H. Conf. Reports and Reports................................       436    26,884         437,300       2,500,000
    Treaties/Exec...............................................        40     2,007         179,300         183,700
    Public Laws.................................................       151     2,674         347,400         380,300
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Totals................................................     5,225   114,000       5,200,000      13,100,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Document Services
        The Document Services section coordinates requests for printed
    legislation and miscellaneous publications with other departments
    within the Office of the Secretary, Senate committees, and the
    Government Printing Office, to ensure the most current version of all
    material is available, and that sufficient quantities are in storage to
    meet projected demand.
        The primary responsibility of this section is to provide services
    to the Senate. However, the responsibility to the general public, the
    press, and other government agencies is virtually indistinguishable
    from services provided to the Senate. Requests for material are
    received at the walk-in counter, through the mail, by FAX, and recorded
    messages. Recorded messages and FAX messages operate twenty-four hours
    a day, and are filled the same day they are received, as are mail
    requests.
    Summary of Annual Statistics
        The following chart is a summary of activities and trends in
    Document Services from 1988 through 1998.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Calls      Public       Staff        Fax       Counter
               Calendar year/Congress/session              received      mail        phone      request    requests
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1988: 100/2ND.......................................     107,871      20,579      79,163         N/A         N/A
    1989: 101/1ST.......................................     114,580      24,415      85,488         N/A         N/A
    1990: 101/2ND.......................................     154,497      23,322      96,330         N/A         N/A
    1991: 102/1ST.......................................     158,714      29,301      94,503         N/A         N/A
    1992: 102/2ND.......................................     144,478      21,634      64,543         N/A         N/A
    1993: 103/1ST.......................................     135,035      23,679      64,752         N/A         N/A
    1994: 103/2ND.......................................     128,463      20,460      54,919       4,934         N/A
    1995: 104/1ST.......................................     134,062      22,704      45,466      10,182         N/A
    1996: 104/2ND.......................................     110,742      15,140      35,479       8,043         N/A
    1997: 105/1ST.......................................      60,296      12,739      23,672       7,261         N/A
    1998: 105/2ND.......................................      35,116       8,131      13,850       5,162     113,862
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Docutech Project
        The following tables summarize quantities and costs associated with
    on-demand (supplemental) printing of bills and reports during the first
    and second sessions of the 105th Congress. The first table compares on-
    site printing requests. The second table indicates work printed for
    other government agencies by GPO in order to more fully employ the
    machine. Costs are based upon a charge of two cents per page.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Run    Original                    Cost      Total
                                                      Count    Length     Pages    Printed Pages    Each      Cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Document Services:
        1997:
            Totals................................       946    31,593    45,832       2,100,000     $1.33   $41,995
            Daily Averages........................       4.4       146     212.2           9,712       N/A   $194.43
        1998:
            Total.................................      42 3    23,904    25,442       1,700,000    $1.4 2   $33,959
            Daily Averages........................       3.6       142     187.7           9,786       N/A   $195.86
    Agencies 1998:
        Totals....................................       747   379,986    92,941       7,500,000       .28   150,079
        Daily Averages............................       2.5     1,267     309.8          25,008       N/A   $500.26
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff Changes
        The Office of Printing and Document Services announces the
    retirement of Barry J. Wolk as Director and the appointment of Linda
    Daniels to that position.
                         office of captioning services
        The Office of Captioning Services provides real-time captioning of
    Senate Floor proceedings for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and
    unofficial electronic transcripts of Senate Floor proceedings to Senate
    offices via the Senate Intranet.
    General Overview
        Caption quality continues to be the number one priority. Peer
    reviews are conducted on a weekly basis. The office average for
    accuracy was down slightly for 1998 because of changes to the error
    scoring methodology.
        The Senate Library and the Internet provide reference information.
    The office library was updated with current-year volumes of select
    reference materials. House and Senate Internet and House and Senate
    public web sites are a great assistance.
    Technology Update
        Year 2000 Compliance (Y2K) concerns of the Secretary of the Senate
    were addressed beginning early in 1998. In July of 1998 the office was
    able to demonstrate Y2K Compliance by operating all systems on-air
    during broadcast as if it were July of 2001. This one-day demonstration
    was preceded by months of testing, upgrading hardware, evaluating
    software, monitoring file creation and manipulation, and getting a
    written ``Y2K Compliant'' confirmation from the system vendors.
        The Senate Recording Studio continues to refine a system to capture
    the caption data stream, time stamps the captions and stores them in a
    searchable database. The text files in the database are linked to audio
    and video files which can be subsequently played on personal computers.
    Additional improvements to this service are anticipated during 1999.
    1999 Objective
        The technology currently used for real-time captioning is not
    Microsoft Windows compatible. The office is evaluating a Windows-based
    Computer-Aided Transcription and Captioning system which is Y2K
    compliant.
        The testing, evaluation and integration of this new technology into
    the office is incorporated in individual goals and objectives for 1999.
    It is hoped this updated technology will be online in late 1999, in
    time for the Second Session of the 106th Congress.
                             special projects--lis
        The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system (2
    U.S.C. 123e) with the objective of providing desktop access to the
    content and status of all Senate legislative information and supporting
    documents. The Special Projects office manages the project, oversees
    the Senate's outside contractor, KPMG Peat Marwick, and coordinates LIS
    training for Senate users.
        One of the early accomplishments in the LIS project was the 1997
    implementation of an Amendment Tracking System (ATS). This system
    enables the Bill Clerk to scan floor amendments as they are received at
    the desk. Within twenty minutes, Senators and staff can view the text
    of an amendment from their personal computers. During the past year,
    this system had two major enhancements implemented. These enhancements
    offer status and statements of purpose when provided by the sponsors
    and enable users to perform detailed searches for particular amendments
    by amendment number, bill number, date introduced, or sponsor. System
    reliability was improved and a method was implemented for easier
    printing of the entire amendment (a frequently requested requirement).
    During the coming year, the Amendment Tracking System will be
    interfaced with the new Document Management System that is being
    implemented as a core component of LIS.
        An anecdote related by a staffer tells how ATS has proven to be
    timely, accurate, and authoritative: The staffer had received a copy of
    an amendment via fax from one of the policy groups, but when the
    staffer printed it from the LIS Amendment Tracking System, it was clear
    that the faxed version was already out of date. (On their way to
    delivering amendments to the clerks, Senators sometimes make
    handwritten changes.) ATS provided a scanned photographic reproduction
    of the amendment copy as the Senator filed it.
        This last year, the focus of the LIS was on analyzing and reviewing
    systems requirements, on the review of related projects and initiatives
    at the Senate and other agencies, and on gathering information integral
    to the implementation of the LIS. Considerable progress was made in
    1998 toward the goal of producing bills and resolutions using the
    Standard General Mark-up Language (SGML). At the direction of the
    Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House
    Administration, the Secretary and the Clerk are developing a common
    standard for document exchange. SGML, widely used for commercial
    publishing, is the standard being developed for exchanging legislative
    information.
        The Secretary and Clerk held two document analysis workshops in
    1998 with representatives from the Senate, House, and legislative
    branch agencies in attendance. The first workshop was held to define
    the structure of bills and resolutions, the first step in the
    development of the Bill Document Type Definition (DTD). Using the
    findings from the workshop, Mulberry Technologies completed the Bill
    DTD in July 1998. The second workshop was held in late 1998 to identify
    the structure of conference reports and to begin the conference report
    DTD development process. The contractor completed the analysis of the
    workshop and the Senate and House Data Managers are reviewing it.
        Concurrent with the DTD development process, the Secretary's
    Office, supported by KPMG, completed an evaluation of SGML Editing
    Environments that could be deployed in the Senate for the creation of
    SGML documents. The results of that evaluation may be further analyzed
    in conjunction with the House before a decision on SGML editors is
    finalized.
        Efforts for the current year will focus on determining
    implementation strategies. Through participation in the Legislative
    SGML Coordinating Committee and the Legislative SGML Technical
    Committee, this Office continues to work closely with the House of
    Representatives to ensure that LIS is compatible with the House
    information systems for purposes of data exchange.
        Also in 1998, a new Committee Scheduling application was developed
    and implemented, replacing the old, difficult to use system. The
    committee scheduling capability enables the Daily Digest Office to
    better schedule committee and subcommittee meetings and to allow all
    Senate users to retrieve information about committee meetings and
    hearings. Reports available from the new system include: Today's
    Meetings/Hearings, Scheduled Meetings/Hearings, Member's Individual
    Schedules, Specific Committee Schedules and Conflicts, and Combined
    Schedules for Members of a Specific Committee. The web-browser
    implementation provides convenient access from all Senate user PC's. In
    the coming year, the Committee Scheduling application will be
    interfaced with the new Document Management System.
        The LIS Document Management System (DMS) development began in
    August 1998. The DMS is to provide a central repository for all Senate
    information including legislation and support documentation. The system
    will collect, manage, store, retrieve, and report various types of data
    by providing accessibility, management, and tracking of information in
    various formats. The LIS DMS, by transmitting data to the Library of
    Congress retrieval system, will serve a wide user base, often with
    different, and sometimes unique, sets of requirements: clerks of the
    Secretary of the Senate, Senate Library, Senate members and staff,
    legislative branch agencies--House, CRS, and LOC, Government Printing
    Office, and the public. The primary objective of Phase I, initiated in
    1998 and to be completed in June, 1999, is to deliver a Year 2000
    functional replacement for the existing LEGIS system with the ability
    to support document attributes, external interfaces, legacy data
    conversion, and reporting. Phase II, also to be completed in 1999, is
    to incorporate textural data and ad hoc reporting in the DMS.
    Interfaces to the Senate Amendment Tracking System and the Committee
    Scheduling System are to be established.
        For 1999, the strategic focus of LIS development must be on
    becoming Year 2000 compliant. The decision to develop the DMS system to
    replace the existing LEGIS was made; therefore, the DMS production
    release must take place as scheduled to allow adequate time for
    thorough system testing in a production environment and to allow
    sufficient time for end to end testing with external system interfaces.
        The LIS Project management meets weekly at Project Office and
    Project Managers meetings and performs the coordination and integration
    of LIS projects. To ensure user inputs into the LIS, Project management
    meets regularly with House and Senate user groups.
    LIS Communications
        While the LIS project is well under way, and large portions of the
    system have been successfully introduced to users throughout the
    Senate, LIS is still a work in progress. The announcement and promotion
    of change activities associated with LIS must be carefully organized.
    It is not only critical that changes to the system be announced quickly
    and effectively, but also that the appropriate messenger and
    communications vehicle be identified well in advance. The LIS
    communications plan attempts to address these issues by pinpointing the
    LIS systems that will be enhanced during the second and third years of
    LIS implementation and outlining a clear and concise means of
    communicating necessary information to key users. Two key components of
    the communications plan are the establishment of the LIS User Group and
    the production of informational materials and marketing tools.
        The LIS User Group collects requirements and priorities of Senate
    offices to ensure that enhancements to LIS meet the needs of as broad a
    range of Senate researchers as possible. This group will also be used
    as a test group to provide feedback on enhancements to the system
    before they are introduced to the Senate as a whole. The requirements
    and feedback provided by this User Group will be recorded and factored
    into decisions the Project Plan proceeds.
        The Project Office is seeking the active involvement of a broad
    spectrum of Senate staff (Legislative Directors, Legislative
    Assistants, Press Secretaries, and Systems Administrators) to make a
    commitment to participate in this LIS User Group through the completion
    of LIS implementation.
        LIS informational materials and marketing tools are designed to
    ensure that Senate staff know what resources are available. These
    materials are continually updated and distributed to a wide range of
    staffers throughout the Senate. The Office of the Secretary has already
    developed several ``Quick Cards'' to provide users with key information
    on how to use the Amendment Tracking, Committee and Subcommittee
    Scheduling and the Roll Call Vote Tracking systems.
        These cards have proven to be effective tools and, though they will
    need to be continually updated, will remain in circulation. As
    enhancements are made to the system, the need to create additional
    ``Quick Cards'' may also become apparent.
    LIS Training
        The Legislative Information System and Document Management System
    (LIS/DMS) are intended to serve varied groups of users, many with
    unique requirements. The primary objective of LIS training is to
    prepare Senate staff to test, use, maintain, and support the LIS/DMS.
        Following establishment of the Senate Office of Education and
    Training and recruitment of an LIS trainer, an instructional needs
    analysis was completed in October, 1998. Several audiences were
    identified for LIS/DMS training: Senate clerks, system administrators,
    including Secretary of the Senate Information Systems/Computer staff as
    well as Sergeant at Arms application development personnel, Help Desk
    personnel, Enterprise IT personnel, and end users. A training plan
    submitted in November, 1998, summarized the instructional analysis,
    described instructional methods and training resources, and outlined
    the training curriculum for each audience. In addition, the training
    plan included recommendations for vendor-supplied technical training
    for developers and those involved in supporting and maintaining the
    LIS/DMS.
        Since each audience has distinct needs, the training approach is
    highly customized. The curriculum includes labs and practical exercises
    to reinforce skills and the use of realistic scenarios to enable
    authentic assessment. Reference materials and other resources are being
    prepared to assist staff after training has occurred. Two training
    guides, one for system administrators and another for the Senate
    clerks, will be available for reference. The training team is also
    developing on-line help for the LIS/DMS. While the training guides and
    training sessions are geared toward roles, the on-line help focuses of
    specific system functions and screens.
        The initial training session for Senate clerks is scheduled for
    March, 1999, and is to prepare the clerks for their role in user unit
    and system testing. A second training session is scheduled in May,
    1999, to prepare for User Acceptance testing and system production.
    This session will cover any system changes implemented after user
    testing and serve as a refresher course before actual production
    begins. Each session contains two components, one for common system
    functions and a second customized component for each office, focusing
    on office-specific tasks relating to the LIS/DMS. During the initial
    production period, onsite help will be provided by the LIS trainer in
    the Office of Education and Training to help ease the transition from
    LEGIS to the LIS/DMS.
        Training for the system administrator group is scheduled for May,
    1999. Each group involved in the technical administration of the LIS/
    DMS will participate in the training modules appropriate for the
    responsibilities they will assume with the new system.
        End user training is currently offered once a month to Members and
    member office staff through the Office of Education and Training. This
    class is based on the LIS website on www.congress.gov. Modifications to
    the existing LIS user interface will be incorporated into future
    classes.
        It might be noted here that although every effort is being made
    toward a comprehensive training program, many end users have reported
    that the LIS is so ``user-friendly'' and the published materials are so
    helpful that they do not feel the need to take time from the job to
    attend training sessions.
                             Administrative Offices
                               disbursing office
              front counter--administrative and financial services
        The Front Counter is the main service area of all general Senate
    business and financial activity. It is the receiving point for most
    incoming expense vouchers, payroll actions, and employee benefits
    related forms, and is the initial verification point to ensure that
    paperwork received in the Disbursing Office conforms to all applicable
    Senate rules, regulations, and statutes.
        The Front Counter is the first line of service provided to Senate
    Members, Officers, and employees. All new Senate employees (permanent
    and temporary) who will be working in the Capitol Hill Senate offices
    are administered the required oath of office and personnel affidavit
    and provided verbal and written detailed information regarding their
    pay and benefits. Authorization is certified to new and state employees
    for issuance of their Senate I.D. card. Cash advances are issued to
    Senate staff authorized for official Senate travel and travelers'
    checks are available for a non-profit basis to assist the traveler.
    Numerous inquiries are handled daily, ranging from pay, benefits,
    taxes, laws, and Senate regulations in our commitment to provide the
    highest degree of customer service. Senate entities, in the course of
    official duties, receive cash and checks as part of their daily
    business. These funds are submitted through the front counter, become
    part of the accountability of the Senate for federally appropriated
    funds, and are processed through the general ledger system.
    General Activities
        The Front Counter: Issued approximately 1,500 cash advances for
    official Senate travel; received more than 18,000 checks from Senate
    entities; administered oath and personnel affidavits to more than 3,500
    new Senate staff; and maintained brochures for 18 Federal health
    carriers and distributed approximately 4,000 brochures to staff during
    the annual FEHB open season.
                       central human resources department
        During 1998, the Senate Disbursing Office initiated a plan to merge
    the functions and responsibilities of the Payroll Section and Employee
    Benefits Section into one department that supports the central human
    resource needs of the Senate. The Central Human Resource Administration
    (HR) is to maintain and administer payroll processing, retirement,
    health insurance, life insurance, and other central human resource
    programs to provide responsive, personal attention to Members and
    employees on a non-biased and confidential basis.
        The Senate's internal organizational structure is decentralized
    among 160 offices. Each of these offices are separate accounting
    locations and are the statutory appointing authority of their staff as
    well as the certifying officer to obligate funds. Flexibility to manage
    human resources at the distributed location best serves the Senate.
    Office specific and personal employee data not required for payroll
    purposes is maintained at the distributed office level.
        The Disbursing Office staff in these sections are experienced in
    their respective fields and have extensive background knowledge of the
    other sections involved. To best utilize their skills for the Senate's
    benefit, and in order to provide a stimulating work environment for
    staff, cross training the staff and rotating them on a monthly basis
    between functions, was determined to be the best direction. After
    training is finished, the Disbursing Office will be able to provide
    eleven central HR counselors who will have comprehensive knowledge of
    all areas related to payroll, retirement, life and health insurance,
    the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), social security, employment verification
    and investigation, and other central HR related benefits.
                                payroll section
        The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System
    and is responsible for the following: processing, verifying, and
    warehousing all payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office
    by Senators for their personal staff, by Chairmen for their committee
    staff, and by other elected officials for their staff; issuing salary
    payments to the above employees; maintaining the Automated Clearing
    House (ACH) FEDLINE facilities for the normal transmittal of payroll
    deposits to the Federal Reserve; distributing the appropriate payroll
    expenditure and allowance reports to the individual offices; issuing
    the proper withholding and agency contributions reports to the
    Accounting Department; and transmitting the proper Thrift Savings Plan
    (TSP) information to the National Finance Center (NFC), while
    maintaining earnings records for distribution to the Social Security
    Administration, and maintaining taxable earnings records of employees
    for W-2 statements, which are prepared by this section. The Payroll
    Section is also responsible for the payroll portion of the Report of
    the Secretary of the Senate.
    General Activities
        Calendar Year 1998 started out with the processing of more than 800
    Federal Employees' Health Benefits (FEHB) forms, along with 600 Thrift
    Savings Plan (TSP) open season forms, and just over 4,000 cost-of-
    living increases, all of which became effective on January 1, 1998. The
    second open season for TSP produced an additional 600 forms that became
    effective July 1, 1998.
        The U. S. Capitol Police (USCP) transferred from the Senate to the
    National Finance Center (NFC) payroll system March 1, 1998. Although
    nearly 700 officers were transferred off the Senate Payroll/Personnel
    system, two months of salary records were maintained on the Payroll/
    Personnel system to issue W-2's for Calendar Year 1998. The members of
    the USCP payroll personnel team have remained in close contact with the
    Disbursing Office for guidance on operational procedures. It should be
    noted that the reporting of salaries and positions of their Officers
    and employees are still being reported in the Report of the Secretary
    of the Senate.
        The Payroll Section worked with the Human Resources Division of the
    Sergeant at Arms to restructure and reorganize the employees under
    their jurisdiction. The new structure provided better methods for
    monitoring employee costs within their jurisdiction. When the format
    was completed, the Payroll Section provided the Sergeant at Arms with a
    data information file that greatly helped the movement of employees
    within the Payroll/Personnel system. The new structure became effective
    June 1, 1998.
        The annual Integral Conference was held in San Diego, California in
    August. The Conference was used to study and review the upgrade to the
    9.5 system. Special attention was paid to organizations using both 9.5
    and the OS/390 system to produce payrolls. It was noted that
    organizations who had not chosen to upgrade to the 9.2 or 9.3 systems
    were now upgrading to Integral's 9.5 system because of its superior Y2K
    concept. It was noted that organizations that had chosen the Client/
    Server as a processing system were again reviewing mainframe operations
    to regain functionality and increase processing speed. Both concepts
    are limited by the Client/Server systems. The Integral Conference for
    1999 will be held August 22-25, 1999 in New Orleans, Louisiana.
        During the summer, the Payroll Section made use of interns to
    microfilm payroll check registers for the period January 1, 1990-
    December 31, 1995. As a result of this project, we removed 50 boxes of
    paper from the office and valuable payment records were permanently
    stored on microfilm.
        The Section has been working with the members for the FAMIS project
    to create a cost accounting structure for the payrolls. Over 900 new
    department/location numbers were created in the system to be able to
    report at a lower level within an office to more accurately allocate
    costs of the offices. An extract of payroll cost was created to
    automatically post payroll information into FAMIS. Payroll supplied the
    system accountants with office expenditure reports to assist in the
    verification of system totals.
    Year 2K Project Activities
        The Year 2000 Project for the conversion of the Payroll/Personnel
    system has progressed to the acceptance testing stage. On March 1,
    1999, the Information Technology Department of the Office of the
    Sergeant at Arms released the Integral 9.5 version of the program to
    the Human Resources Division of the Disbursing Office for review and
    extensive acceptance testing.
        The Y2K upgrade of the Payroll/Personnel system acceptance testing
    was scheduled to occur after 1998 year-end work for payroll reporting
    was completed and after the massive amount of payroll actions generated
    by a new Congress was completed. It was also decided, in order to
    mitigate risk, that the Y2K payroll project not coincide with the
    higher profile and significantly greater effort underway with the
    Financial Management Information System (FMIS) mandate. The program
    plan further provided for up to six months of acceptance testing and
    parallel processing with final implementation to occur no later than
    October 1, 1999.
        The Payroll/Personnel project to update the current system began in
    April of 1997. The first phase of the project required the members of
    the programming team to begin to convert the Senate specific files to a
    Y2K compliant format. There are two Senate specific (built in-house)
    systems. The Office Allowance system, which controls payroll expense
    distribution, and the History DataBase system, which maintains
    employees' service and retirement histories. Both segments of this
    phase of the project were completed by February 1998.
        The second phase of the project was to install Integral's Y2K
    compliant version of the Payroll/Personnel system. Integral expanded
    its programming format to both accommodate converting the six-digit
    dating system to an eight-digit dating system, and allow for future
    expansions and upgrades of its system. In the upgrade package, Integral
    supplies step by step instructions and the system's programming has
    been thoroughly beta tested before being released to its customers. The
    Senate has always made it a practice to install a product only after
    other customers have used it for at least six months and have some of
    the bugs worked out. Once the program was installed and verified,
    consultants and Senate programmers began to convert 9.3 Integral files
    and retrofit Senate modifications. By following a strict upgrade
    schedule, the programmers involved completed their conversion by
    December 31, 1998. At this point the IT team converted the online
    employee data and ran a trial payroll. Finally a comparison of the two
    systems was made, and in every case the payroll data matched dollar for
    dollar.
        The final phase of acceptance testing begins in March 1999,
    checking the operating functionality and input load testing. The
    Disbursing Office team in charge of testing has been involved in almost
    a dozen conversions and two major implementation projects, and are
    experts in both the Integral and Senate programs. Once completed, both
    the 9.3 and 9.5 systems will be parallel tested for certification of
    accuracy. The Disbursing Office is confident that the Y2K 9.5 version
    of the Payroll/Personnel system will be operational on or before the
    October 1, 1999 deadline. The OS/390 processing system will provide the
    needed Y2K compatible production system.
                           employee benefits section
        The Employee Benefits Section (EBS) primary responsibilities are
    administration of Senate employees' health and life insurance and
    retirement programs for the Senate. The Section's work includes
    research and verification of prior Senate or other federal service for
    new appointees. EBS prepares these forms for payroll input and after
    they are returned, verifies the accuracy of the information when the
    Official Personnel Folder is received. Employment verifications for
    loans, the Bar, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of
    Defense, and for outside insurance are completed in EBS. Unemployment
    claim forms are completed, and employees are counseled. Department of
    Labor billings for unemployment paid to Senate employees are checked in
    EBS and submitted by voucher to the Accounting Section to be paid.
    Designations of Beneficiaries for FEGLI, CSRS, FERS, and for unpaid
    compensation are filed and checked by EBS.
    General Activities
        The annual FEHB Open Season was held, with over 800 employees
    changing plans. A great number of FEHB plans changed and the changes
    had to be updated manually.
        The FEHB Open Season Health Fair was attended by about 900
    employees, a great showing. Because the Fair is so well run and there
    have been many requests of this sort, it was opened it to all employees
    on the Hill, including House and Architect employees.
        There again were 2 TSP Open Seasons, and the employee changes
    remained about the same as normal, 1 in 7.
        Mortgage rates, still being low, kept employment verifications
    coming in at a rapid pace, averaging 140 per month.
        Seminars were held for the 8 outgoing Members' staffs, as well as
    for Committees facing reorganization. Information disseminated included
    retirement, health and life insurance, and unemployment.
        Counseling, retirement planning, and processing were normal in
    1998. Since most of the Members leaving were long term Members who were
    retiring, the retirement caseload for early 1999 will be heavy, and so
    counseling in advance during 1998 was heavy. Total retirement cases
    processed equaled 87 (47 CSRS + 40 FERS).
        The annual Integral Conference was held in San Diego, California in
    August. Staff used the Conference to review the 9.5 upgrade for the
    Payroll/Personnel system, and to finalize Y2K planning and strategies
    to meet deadlines. This Conference emphasized that the Client/Server
    movement was shifting BACK to mainframes such as the OS/390 and
    introduced new products to work with this smaller mainframe. They
    demonstrated that they will continue to support mainframe products,
    since a number of companies have tried Client/Server and concluded
    mainframe or minicomputers would better serve where large amounts on
    online memory were a necessity as it is in the Senate. This was very
    helpful as the Sergeant at Arms has now purchased and is installing a
    new OS/390 system.
        The Payroll and Benefits Sections' Supervisors attend Integral
    User's Conferences annually, and each Conference consists of working
    sessions (usually 9 to 10 in 3 days) with topics ranging from problems
    found by other users during implementations/migrations, to visions of
    future enhancements of the systems.
        Work was finished on the 9.5 release plans of the Integral Payroll/
    Personnel system, which got us well on the way to the year 2000
    requirements, as well as upgrading many aspects of the payroll system
    processing. The implementation date is set for October 1999, although
    it will probably be done months earlier.
        Telephone inquiries, although not specifically tracked, appear to
    be at record levels, with the Benefits staff of 7 pressed to answer
    calls quickly enough to keep lines open.
        With the USCP transferred from the Senate to the NFC payroll system
    March 1, 1998, this Section single handedly completed the transfer. All
    aspects of the movement of about 700 staff off the Senate payroll,
    including all payroll and benefits records and computer data went off
    without a hitch and was completed within one month of the transfer. The
    USCP was extremely complimentary regarding the Benefits Section's
    performance.
                     disbursing office financial management
        During fiscal year 1998, the Disbursing Office restructured its
    functional departments that were responsible for financial management.
    In previous years, these responsibilities were carried out by the
    combined efforts of the Accounting, Audit, and Financial Management
    Systems Development Sections. In order to execute the Senate's mandates
    to install an integrated financial management system that replaces
    current stand alone systems that are not Year 2000 compliant and in
    order to prepare consolidated, auditable financial statements, it was
    necessary to reorganize these departments.
        Headed by the Chief Financial Officer, the mission of Disbursing
    Office Financial Management (DOFM) is to coordinate all central
    financial policies, procedures, and activities to produce an auditable
    consolidated financial statement for the Senate and to provide
    professional customer service, training and confidential financial
    guidance to all Senate accounting locations. DOFM is segmented into
    four functional departments: Accounting, Budget, Financial Systems, and
    Policy and Control. The CFO coordinates the activities of the four
    functional departments, establishes central financial policies and
    procedures, acts as the primary liaison to the HR Administrator, and
    carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk of the Senate. The
    new functional department responsibilities are diagramed below:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA24.000

        The CFO continues to participate in the Legislative Branch
    Financial Manager's Council. This group was formed with the lead of the
    General Accounting Office and Library of Congress to help coordinate
    and standardize accounting and financial reporting practices throughout
    the Legislative Branch. Participation enhances the planning effort in
    converting to the standard general ledger of the government and
    implement obligation and accrual basis accounting.
        The most significant event and activity of the past year for
    Disbursing Office Financial Management has been the change of
    management responsibility for the Senate's Financial Management
    Information System (FMIS), and the implications of this change on the
    DOFM. In May of 1998, responsibility for the planning and execution of
    the Senate's Financial Management Information System (FMIS) was
    assigned to the Disbursing Office. In June the Financial Clerk of the
    Senate designated the CFO as the new Project Director. The following
    paragraphs will give a status of FMIS and what was accomplished in the
    past six months.
    FMIS Project Background and Strategic Initiatives
        There are four major phases of the FMIS strategic initiative:
    Replace, Rollout, Report, and Reengineer. The Disbursing Office is
    currently proceeding with the replacement phase of FMIS. The general
    tasks associated with this phase include: replacing the Disbursing
    Office general ledger system (DOVES); upgrading the Sergeant at Arms
    mainframe core financial system on October 1, 1998 to support the
    financial management operation for the Senate on a single, Year 2000
    compliant platform; and replace and deploy an automated procurement
    system within the offices of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms
    offices on October 1, 1998. The Senate's selection for the replacement
    of the core financial and procurement systems are the KPMG Federal
    FAMIS 4.0 and ADPICS 4.5 products.
        Federal FAMIS (Financial Accounting Management Information System)
    is the general ledger system that replaces a conglomeration of more
    than a dozen existing systems (see attached schedule). ADPICS (Advanced
    Purchasing and Inventory Control System) is an upgrade to the
    purchasing system used by the Sergeant at Arms and replaces purchasing
    capabilities of several other systems throughout the Senate. The FAMIS
    and ADPICS products are being integrated so that the Senate may
    instantly record the procurement activity as a financial event on the
    general ledger. The ADPICS product is also being used as the front end
    voucher preparation system that will replace the systems currently
    being used by the Member Offices and Committees.
        The Rollout phase of the FMIS initiative began in February, 1999.
    The Rollout involves distributing the financial and purchasing systems
    throughout the Member Offices, Committees and other administrative
    offices of the Senate. The two main tasks in this phase are the
    training of functional staff and technical support of the offices once
    they are online. The Disbursing Office will proceed methodically with
    the distribution of the system throughout fiscal year 1999 in order to
    provide as much support as possible to offices during the conversion.
    In February, 1999 the eight new Member offices came online together
    with a pilot group of four existing Member offices (two Republican and
    two Democratic) that have been selected for the pilot program by the
    Office Managers of the Senate. In March of 1999, all users of the
    Senate Committee Expense Accounting System (SCEAS) will be converted to
    FMIS. Finally, starting in May of 1999, blocks of twenty offices will
    be converted to FMIS, with the goal of complete Senate-wide conversion
    by September 30, 1999.
        During fiscal year 1999, the Disbursing Office will process all
    financial transactions for Senate Offices in FMIS. This decision will
    greatly reduce the complexity of the Rollout phase of the project.
    Expense reimbursement requests are created from existing systems within
    Senate Offices and forwarded to the Disbursing Office. The Disbursing
    Office is reclassifying the vendor numbers, expense and account
    classification into FMIS format, performing the data entry, and
    maintaining all of the Senate accounts. Currently, offices have to
    reconcile with Disbursing Office records on a monthly basis. Upon
    conversion, an office will have direct access to the account that the
    Disbursing Office has been maintaining throughout the fiscal year, thus
    eliminating the need for data conversion from one system to another.
        The third phase of FMIS is Reporting. The Disbursing Office has
    developed a classification structure that will enable entity level
    reporting and the general ledger structure necessary to create
    proprietary financial statements. Many gaps still exist in the
    information that is required for these financial statements. The most
    obvious of these information gaps is asset valuation. One of the major
    tasks in the reporting phase of the project is the development and
    integration of a fixed asset module that will provide timely asset
    valuation and allow the financial staff to depreciate the value of
    equipment used by the Senate. Another major reporting task is the
    complete revision of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate to
    extract data from FMIS more efficiently than was the case in previous
    systems. Development and distribution of financial reports to FMIS
    users will also be a major focus of the reporting phase of FMIS.
        Reengineering the technical environment is the fourth phase of
    FMIS. The FMIS vision is for a secure, paperless, fully integrated
    financial system complete with signature authentication, optical
    scanning, storage and retrieval of documents. The challenge in this
    phase will be the critical assessment of commercially available
    technology to find the best solution for the Senate's business needs.
    During fiscal year 1999, the Disbursing Office will develop the program
    plan to be followed to attain this vision.
    FMIS Project Status
        The core FAMIS and ADPICS systems were delivered by KPMG to the
    Senate for acceptance testing on September 21, 1998. The Senate's
    acceptance testing of FAMIS and ADPICS was aggressively managed to
    complete accelerated testing of core functions in less than two weeks
    (the original program plan called for six months of testing). Most of
    the functional financial staff of the Disbursing Office and Sergeant at
    Arms participated in the acceptance testing and completed an
    extraordinary amount of work under the intense pressure of completing
    the fiscal year-end activities and reporting, as well as meeting
    acceptance testing deadlines. The efforts paid off, as successful
    acceptance testing confirmed the decision to convert to the new system
    for fiscal year 1999. On October 1, a purchase order for the Office of
    the Secretary was posted ``live''. Also by October 1, the Disbursing
    Office had successfully developed and installed the Senator's Office
    Accounting System version 1999 (SOAS99) for Member Offices and received
    the first SOAS99 voucher. SOAS99 is an upgrade of the existing SOAS
    system which incorporates much of the accounting classification
    structure of FMIS which will ease the transition to FMIS for Member
    Offices. On October 18, 1998 final accounting fiscal year closing of
    the DOVES system was completed. On October 19, the FAMIS check writing
    system produced the first check payment. Over the course of the last
    several months, DOFM has continued the transition to operation of the
    new financial system, and is developing the operational procedures and
    accounting structure to accommodate all of the Senate's financial
    transactions. The scale of the conversion has forced DOFM to rewrite
    every single accounting transaction. Initial efforts prioritized the
    transactions by volume, and worked first on Member Office transactions,
    then Sergeant at Arms, Committees, Revolving Funds, and Office of the
    Secretary.
        During the initial installation, the Disbursing Office executed
    concurrent system acceptance testing, staff training, and the
    reclassification of accounting transactions from cash basis to
    obligation and accrual basis. Also throughout the initial installation,
    significant system performance issues contributed to delays in the
    payment of the Senate's bills. A system performance project has been
    initiated, bringing the technical staffs of the Sergeant at Arms and
    KPMG together with the Disbursing Office on a daily basis to address
    immediate and long term system performance issues. The early problems
    have been resolved and payments are now being processed within 14 days
    after the Disbursing Office receives the required documentation. The
    support and patience of the Senate community as the Disbursing Office
    became proficient in transaction processing, and as system performance
    issues were resolved was tremendous, and the Disbursing Office
    expresses its thanks.
        Several financial policy decisions have been made during the phase
    one implementation that will have an immediate impact on the Senate's
    financial reporting capabilities. The Senate has adopted the Standard
    General Ledger (SGL) used by the majority of the Federal Government.
    This decision will enable the Senate to prepare standard financial
    statements consistent in form and content with other federal agencies.
    Also adopted is the object classification for expenditures of the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This decision will enable the
    categorization of budget authority and expenditure reporting consistent
    throughout the Senate and consistent with the other federal agencies.
    FMIS Keys to Success
        Successful implementation of a financial management system, or any
    complicated task for that matter, cannot be achieved without the proper
    resources, the proper management of those resources, and the
    cooperation, dedication, and work ethic of each individual involved in
    the project. Efforts thus far with FMIS have been fortunate to have
    resources made available by the Senate and particularly by the
    Secretary of the Senate and the outstanding efforts of those
    individuals in the Disbursing Office and Sergeant at Arms who have
    worked many long days, nights, and weekends to bring the project back
    on schedule. The cooperation between the Offices of the Secretary of
    the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms during this aggressive
    implementation has been tremendous.
                             accounting department
        The Accounting Department combines the functions of the Accounting
    and Audit Sections in the former Disbursing Office configuration. The
    goal in the combination of the Sections was to combine responsibilities
    that were functionally related, such as accounts payable, in order to
    maximize efficiencies in the delivery of service to the Senate.
        The Accounting Department has several functional responsibilities
    including:
      --Maintain the Senate's financial records and statements.
      --Maintain general ledger accounts and other accounting records in
            FMIS.
      --Ensure adherence to appropriation limitations established by the
            Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, and Title 2 of the
            United States Code.
      --Perform various GL account reconciliations (Suspense, Clearing
            accounts).
      --Reconcile fixed assets with Sergeant at Arms fixed asset management
            module in FMIS.
      --Process accounts payable for the Senate and coordinate
            disbursements.
      --Provide accurate and timely reports to Senate distributed
            accounting locations.
      --Establish and maintain internal controls over financial processes.
      --Design and manage monthly and year-end closing processes and
            procedures.
      --Prepare audited consolidated financial statements and notes in
            compliance with the latest FASAB and OMB requirements.
      --Manage the annual financial statement audit with GAO or independent
            auditors.
    General Activities
        During fiscal year 1998, the Accounting Section and the new
    Accounts Payable Department processed nearly 90,000 expense
    reimbursement vouchers for payment on 66,719 United States Treasury
    checks issued. Accounting Operations processed 1,780 deposits for items
    ranging from receipts received by the Senate operations, such as the
    Stationery Room, to canceled subscription refunds from Member offices.
    General ledger maintenance also prompted the entry of 8,573 adjustment
    entries that include the entry of all appropriation and allowance
    funding limitation transactions, all accounting cycle closing entries,
    and all non-voucher reimbursement transactions such as payroll
    adjustments, stop payment requests, travel advance and repayments, and
    limited payability reimbursements.
    Financial Reporting Requirements--External
        Monthly financial reporting requirements to the Department of the
    Treasury include a Statement of Accountability that details all
    increases and decreases to the accountability of the Secretary of the
    Senate, such as checks issued during the month and deposits received,
    as well as a detailed listing of cash on hand. Also reported to the
    Department of the Treasury on a monthly basis is the Statement of
    Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts
    that summarizes all activity at the appropriation level of every penny
    disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate through the Financial Clerk of
    the Senate. All activity by appropriation account is reconciled with
    the Department of the Treasury on a monthly and annual basis. The
    annual reconciliation of the Treasury Combined Statement is also used
    in the reporting to the Office of Management and Budget as part of the
    submission of the annual operating budget of the Senate.
        The Accounting Department also transmits all Federal tax payments
    on a monthly basis for Federal, Social Security and Medicare taxes
    withheld from payroll expenditures, as well as the Senate's matching
    contribution for Social Security and Medicare to the Federal Reserve
    Bank on a monthly basis. The Department also performs quarterly
    reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and annual reporting
    and reconciliation with the IRS and the Social Security Administration.
    Payments for Senate employee withholding for state income taxes are
    reported and paid on a quarterly basis to each state with applicable
    state income taxes withheld. Monthly reconciliations are performed with
    the National Finance Center regarding the Senate's employee withholding
    and agency matching contributions for the Thrift Savings Plan. All
    employee withholdings and agency contributions for life and health
    insurance, and federal retirement programs are transmitted to the
    Office of Personnel Management on a monthly basis. Any adjustment to
    employee contributions to any of the health, life and retirement plans
    from previous accounting periods are also processed by the Accounting
    Department.
        One of the key components of implementing FMIS on an extremely
    tight schedule this past year was the decision to utilize DOFM
    functional staff for acceptance testing of the system. Beginning in
    July, DOFM managers worked with KPMG to develop training materials for
    ADPICS and FAMIS. DOFM staff were trained on the basic functions of the
    system in August and September and moved directly into acceptance
    testing of the system in September. While maintaining current reporting
    responsibilities and closing out old systems, the efforts of DOFM staff
    supported the decision to migrate to FMIS in October. Throughout the
    fall, DOFM Accounting Department staff have been executing the design
    and reclassification of all accounting transactions for operation in
    FMIS. The key development efforts have focused upon the check writing
    module and travel transactions. The Accounting Department has worked
    diligently over the past year to improve the service that is provided
    to the Senate customer base: Member Offices, Committees, and
    Leadership, and support offices. Despite early system performance
    issues that resulted in delays in the Senate's payment cycle, the staff
    of DOFM are currently processing all of the Senate's bills in less than
    two weeks from when the proper documentation is received in the
    Disbursing Office.
    Financial Reporting Requirements--Internal
        Internally, the Accounting Section prepares and transmits ledger
    statements monthly to all Member offices and all other offices with
    payroll and non-payroll expenditures. These ledger statements detail
    all of the financial activity for the appropriate accounting period
    with regards to official expenditures in detail and summary form. On a
    semiannual basis all committee ledgers are reconciled with the
    Accounting Section records, and the results are reported to the
    Committee on Rules and Administration. Also, on a semiannual basis, the
    Accounting Department prepares necessary reports and information to be
    included in the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. On a monthly and
    semiannual basis, a complete reconciliation of the Senate payroll is
    performed. Substantial effort in the Reporting Phase of FMIS will
    require extensive work to modify existing reports and develop new
    reports to meet the internal and external reporting requirements of
    DOFM.
                         accounts payable audit section
        The Accounts Payable Audit Section of the Accounting Department is
    responsible for auditing vouchers and answering questions regarding
    voucher preparation, identifying duplicate payments vouchered by
    offices, monitoring payments related to contracts, training new Office
    Managers and Chief Clerks about Senate financial practices, training
    Office Managers in the use of the Senate's Financial Management
    Information System, and producing the Report of the Secretary of the
    Senate. The Section also maintains the Senate's central vendor file and
    monitors the Fund Advance Tracking System (FATS) by ensuring that
    advances are charged correctly, vouchers repaying such advances are
    entered, and balances adjusted for reuse of the advance funds. An
    ``aging'' process is also performed to ensure that advances are repaid
    in the time specified by the advance regulations.
    General Activities
        Participated in various seminars sponsored by the Office Manager
    groups, Secretary of the Senate, Sergeant at Arms, and the Library of
    Congress.
        Performed the following training sessions for individual offices:
    new Office Managers/Chief Clerks, 35; SOAS users, 26.
        Assisted the audit staff of the Committee on Rules and
    Administration with the drafting of changes to the travel regulations.
        The number of active American Express accounts has grown
    approximately 10 percent from 700 to 765 accounts over the period
    January-September 1998. This has increased the amount of time necessary
    to work with offices in the submission of the expense claims. The
    Senate has had to work through a change of vendors for the travel card
    as of November 1998. These accounts are being monitored on a monthly
    basis, and when necessary, offices are encouraged to submit the expense
    voucher in a more timely manner.
        The number of Rocky Mountain Bank Card Accounts has increased from
    23 to 40 offices actively using the card. This necessitates an active
    participation in the training of the offices and the monitoring of the
    account to avoid the payment of finance changes that may accrue to this
    account. The Senate has had to also work through a change of vendors
    for the procurement card as of November 1998.
        Work was completed involving the Sergeant at Arms and Committee on
    Rules and Administration for a ``Memo of Understanding'' between the
    Senate and the U.S. Postal Service. This memo provides a more efficient
    method of billing and easier reconciliation of same. Several meetings
    were held between all parties and are still occurring to resolve some
    issues.
        The system, established through the use of cc:Mail and/or voice
    mail, for the research of vouchers in 1997 has received favorable
    comments. Office Managers and Chief Clerks use cc:Mail and/or voice
    mail to make inquiries concerning a payment status for an expense or
    where it might be in the process. This procedure has allowed for an
    increase in staff productivity as individual staff designated to
    monitor the inquiry line devote time to this effort rather than having
    multiple staff being interrupted as each call was received.
    Automation Report
        The implementation of SOAS 99 in Senatorial Offices provides the
    interim process for the period October 1998 through the transition to
    the new Senate FMIS. SOAS 99 introduces offices to the concepts of
    index and object codes which are crucial to the Senate's FMIS.
        Audit Staff attended 30+ seminars conducted by KPMG on the
    operation and performance of the ADPICS and FAMIS systems prior to
    implementation in October 1998.
        Future objectives are to provide for a successful Rollout to the
    initial pilot group of 12 offices, followed by the Committee
    implementation as their new funding period begins March 1999, and
    finally Member offices in groups of 20, spaced April-September 1999, to
    send staff to KPMG training classes for the FMIS system and the ADPICS
    system (and any other modules that the Senate might procure), and to
    participate in user conferences sponsored by KPMG.
                               budget department
        A key component of the continued restructuring of DOFM is the
    development of a Budget Department. The primary responsibilities of the
    Budget Department will be to compile the annual operating budget of the
    United States Senate for presentation to the Committee on
    Appropriations. The development of specialists in the budget area will
    allow current staff with dual responsibilities in Accounting to focus
    their efforts on general ledger activity.
        Other responsibilities of the Budget Department will be as follows:
      --Responsible for the formulation, presentation and execution of the
            budget for the Senate.
      --Provide a wide range of analytical, technical and advisory
            functions related to the budget process.
      --Coordinate efforts among central and distributed financial
            organizations to produce an integrated budget plan for the
            Senate.
      --Prepare justification requests for requested appropriations.
      --Provide expert advice to Senate officials on budgetary policy.
      --Prepare necessary documentation and provides historical reference
            resource for the Committee on Appropriations.
      --Act as budget officer for the Office of the Secretary, assisting in
            the preparation of testimony for the hearings before the
            Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Rules and
            Administration.
      --Provide advice and recommendations on the discretionary use of
            funds by distributed accounting locations.
      --Provide assistance to the Committee on Appropriations in drafting
            Legislative Branch Appropriations Bills and accompanying
            reports and schedules.
      --Manage complete information of financial management budgetary
            precedents and controls, and OMB and Treasury Department
            guidelines and regulations governing the acquisition and use of
            Federal Funds.
      --Monitor budget execution and recommend necessary transfer and
            reprogramming of funds at the entity and agency level.
      --Review budget estimates with the distributed accounting locations,
            making recommendations, pointing out budget limitations, and
            significant deviations from past years.
      --Analyze obligations, expenditures, and receipts in relation to
            approved work programs and appropriated funds, making
            investigations and recommendations involving the proper
            utilization of these funds.
                          financial systems department
        Another key component of the DOFM restructuring plan during 1998
    was the establishment of a Financial Systems Department. While not yet
    fully staffed, a key manager was brought on board who proved to be
    instrumental in the development and execution of the FMIS project.
        The following functions are the responsibility of the Financial
    Systems Department: Develop FMIS classification structure and perform
    table maintenance; establish and maintain system security features;
    provide FMIS support to system users Senate-wide and perform software
    acceptance testing of new releases; develop ad hoc reports upon
    request; automate vendor and employee payments; manage and maintain the
    Senate's vendor file; and perform general ledger account creation and
    field structure in FMIS.
                         policy and control department
        The final component of the restructuring of DOFM planned for 1999
    is the development of a financial Policy and Control Department. The
    initial function of this department will be to work with GAO and an
    external vendor to perform an auditability assessment of the Senate's
    financial management structure. This task will identify information
    gaps in the Senate's operations that will be necessary to fill in order
    to prepare auditable financial statements.
        Additional responsibilities of the Department are as follows:
      --Develop and maintain comprehensive financial management policy and
            procedures manual to the transaction level.
      --Incorporate policy changes published in the Federal Register, OMB
            Circulars, and other relevant legislation into CFM.
      --Coordinate with the Financial Systems Department to incorporate
            policy changes into financial systems and incorporate FMIS
            system changes at the transaction level into the procedures
            manual.
      --Provide a counseling and reference service for distributed
            accounting locations regarding Senate financial procedure.
      --Perform internal audit function within financial management
            organization.
      --Prepare recommended financial policy and procedures manual for
            distribution to all Senate accounting locations.
      --Serve as liaison with federal agencies such as JFMIP, GSA, and
            FASAB.
      --Provide expertise in developing RFP's, SOW's, and serve on
            evaluation panels.
      --Manage the Senate's debt collection process.
      --Provide and coordinate internal and external FMIS training and
            certifying officer training.
    Staff Changes
        The Disbursing Office announces the retirement of Stuart F.
    Balderson as Financial Clerk and the promotion of Timothy S. Wineman to
    that position.
                           office of human resources
        The Office of Human Resources implements and coordinates human
    resources policies, procedures, and programs for the Office of the
    Secretary of the Senate including hiring; training; performance
    management; job analysis; compensation planning, design, and
    administration; leave administration; records management; recruiting
    and staffing; employee handbooks and manuals; internal grievance
    procedures; employee relations and services; and organizational
    planning and development.
    Quality of Life Initiatives
        The Office of the Secretary continued to focus on quality of life
    programs during the past year. After successfully testing new hours of
    operation for non-floor-dependent employees and a flexible-hour work
    schedule, the Secretary approved a permanent change to both
    initiatives. While offices in direct support of the Senate Chamber must
    follow the work schedule of the Senate, all other offices must be open
    from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., as opposed to 6:00 p.m. previously. The
    Office was able to implement this program without altering the start
    time by reducing the lunch period from one hour to one-half hour.
    Employees desiring longer lunch periods may schedule them through the
    Secretary's flexible-hour program. The newest ``family friendly''
    initiative, and a key feature of flexible scheduling, is the ``core
    hours,'' a set time where everyone must be present for duty. With core
    hours set at 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., employees can, for example, request
    approval from their supervisor to flex for early-morning or late-in-
    the-day medical appointments, parenting responsibilities, and the like.
    The program is, therefore, a win-win situation for the Office as well
    as the employee.
    Human Resources Management System (HRMS)
        In mid-1998, Human Resources and Systems Application specialists
    from the Office of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms formed a team
    to study the problem of maintaining large amounts of employee data
    without a adequate data base. Since that time, systems requirements
    were identified and various vendor software applications were
    evaluated. Lawson Software was selected to fill this void. System
    training will begin in March 1999. A powerful, fully integrated system,
    Lawson will provide both organizations with everything needed to
    execute essential day-to-day activities while taking full advantage of
    state-of-the art technology in other areas like the internet and
    intranet. Targeted to be on-line in June 1999, employees will be able
    to make changes to their personal information in a completely
    automated, paperless process. They will be able to check on sick leave
    and annual leave balances, for example, and report time worked in the
    automated time and attendance system.
    Intern Program
        The Office hosted 28 interns during the summer of 1998. Serving in
    11 different departments, these interns made many worthwhile
    contributions to the goals and objectives of the organization and
    received a unique educational and work experience.
                                 senate library
        The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and
    general reference services to the United States Senate. The
    comprehensive legislative collection consists of congressional
    documents dating from the Continental Congress. In addition, the
    Library maintains executive and judicial branch materials and an
    extensive book collection on politics, history, and biography. These
    sources plus a wide array of online systems assist the Library staff in
    providing confidential, timely, and accurate information services.
    Administration
        The second year of budget review delivered an additional $3,070.33
    reduction in operating expenses. These savings were in addition to more
    than $11,000 in 1997 reductions. The eliminated materials will not
    compromise service. The money saved will allow for the purchase of core
    materials as costs increase and for the purchase of materials for the
    restored Capitol library. A second important budgetary success was
    implementing favorable fixed-fee pricing for all commercial databases
    that allows for unlimited searching and printing.
    Russell Building and Capitol Libraries
        In April 1997, the Secretary requested that the Library develop
    plans for a new Russell Building library facility and for the
    renovation of the historic third-floor Capitol space. The Minneapolis
    design firm of Meyer, Scherer and Rockcastle (MS&R) submitted
    preliminary Russell Building plans that were approved in September.
    Demolition of the Russell space began in late December 1997. Progress
    highlights during 1998 included design planning, selecting equipment
    and furniture, bidding for all materials, removing hazardous materials,
    installing mobile shelving, upgrading electrical and air-handling
    equipment, and exposing the corridor's natural brick. As demolition
    continued, Russell Building interior plans were finalized by October
    1998. Once the mobile shelving was completed, Library staff and Moving
    Masters, a professional moving company, transferred 100,000 volumes
    from the Capitol to the Russell Building. The second phase of the move
    took place during February 1999. The opening date for the Russell
    Building Library was February 22, 1999.
        Simultaneous to the Russell Building project was the planning for
    the renovation of the historic Senatorial Reading Room. MS&R worked
    closely with Architect of the Capitol staff to design the restoration
    of the historic room to its nineteenth-century appearance.
    Information Services
        During 1998, Information Services responded to 37,542 Senate
    requests, sent 5,432 deliveries, and 5,076 faxes. Information Services
    conducted 38,045 searches for news, legal, and business information on
    the Library's outstanding selection of online commercial services. The
    Senators' Reading Room was used by 6,841 patrons; 201,498 photocopies
    were produced; and micrographics use increased by 42 percent over the
    previous year. The optical disk system, providing documents scanned by
    the Library of Congress, continued to be popular with more than 2,162
    items reproduced. In October, the Library inaugurated an electronic
    request mailbox (Reference@sec.gov) and a Telecommunications Device for
    the Deaf (TDD). The two new services allow for 24-hour access, which
    better meets the needs of state offices, staff who work late, and
    special-needs patrons.
    Acquisitions
        The Library ordered 259 books during the year, a decrease of 19
    percent from the 1997 total. Selected book purchases have been made for
    the Capitol location, but most Capitol books will be ordered just
    before the September opening to ensure current editions. For the second
    year, all standing-order accounts were critically reviewed; several
    were discontinued and others will be received during alternating years.
        The Library received 3,155 committee hearings, an increase of 19
    percent over the previous year; 158 committee prints, a 49 percent
    decrease over the previous year; and 1,187 congressional reports and
    documents, which is a new statistical category. A continuing
    acquisitions problem is the practice by some committees of providing
    documents only through the Internet, thus bypassing traditional
    printing. The Library has undertaken the task of ensuring that all
    ``Internet-only'' congressional materials are placed in the permanent
    collection. The Government Printing Office's Depository Library Program
    provided the Library (without charge) with 10,510 items, including
    3,841 paper and 6,669 microfiche titles, a 13 percent increase over
    1997. In addition to congressional materials, the program provides core
    judicial and executive branch publications.
    Cataloging
        The cataloging of congressional documents dramatically increased
    over 1997 totals. The cataloged items included 959 new House committee
    hearings, which was an impressive 97 percent increase over 1997 totals.
    In addition, the cataloging of House committee prints increased 108
    percent and government document microforms increased 36 percent
    increase over 1997 totals. The cataloging of newly arriving Senate
    committee hearings and Senate committee prints increased 124 percent
    and 103 percent, respectively. The ambitious retrospective project of
    cataloging the Library's collection of historic committee hearings
    produced records for 549 House hearings and 2,191 Senate hearings. This
    important project will provide identification and access not only to
    the Senate Library, but to libraries worldwide.
    Automation
        DataTrek, the Library's online cataloging and acquisitions system,
    continued to have problems in 1998 that included incorrect set-ups and
    recurring errors in the serials and acquisitions modules. Year 2000
    compliance necessitated software upgrades and after the review of
    available systems it was determined that DataTrek provided the best
    alternative through their new Graphical Library Automation System
    (GLAS) software. In preparation for GLAS, a faster NT server with
    Windows NT, was installed to reduce system maintenance, release storage
    space on the Secretary's server, and provide for a more stable
    platform. The decision to remain with DataTrek was based on cost, the
    pending Library move, and a less-demanding record conversion, but the
    upgrade should be considered an interim solution.
               office of the senate chief counsel for employment
        The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (``SCCE'') is
    a non-partisan office established at the direction of the Joint
    Leadership in 1993 after enactment of the Government Employee Rights
    Act (``GERA''), which allowed Senate employees to file claims of
    employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the enactment of
    the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (``CAA''), Senate offices
    are now subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations
    of 11 employment laws. The SCCE is charged with the legal
    representation of Senate offices in all employment law matters at both
    the administrative and court levels. Also, on a day-to-day basis, the
    office provides legal advice to Senate offices about their obligations
    under employment laws. Accordingly, each of the 180 offices of the
    Senate is an individual client of the SCCE, and each office maintains
    an attorney-client relationship with the SCCE.
    Background
        Each of the SCCE attorneys came to the office after having
    practiced as employment law litigators in major, national law firms
    representing Fortune 100 corporations. All services the office provides
    are the same legal services the attorneys provided to their clients
    while in private practice. The areas of responsibilities of the SCCE
    can be divided into the following categories: Litigation (Defending
    Against Lawsuits); Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits; Court-Ordered
    Alternative Dispute Resolutions; Preventive Legal Advice; Union Drives,
    Negotiations and Unfair Labor Practice Charges; OSHA/ADA Compliance;
    Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law; and Management
    Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities.
    Litigation (Defending Against Lawsuits); Mediations; Alternative
            Dispute Resolutions
        The SCCE represents each of the 180 employing offices of the Senate
    in all court actions (including both trial and appellate courts),
    hearings, proceedings, investigations, and negotiations relating to
    labor and employment laws. The SCCE handles cases filed in the District
    of Columbia and cases filed in any of the 50 states. The SCCE
    represents a defendant Senate office from the inception of a case
    through U.S. Supreme Court review. The office handles all work
    internally without the assistance of outside law firms or the
    Department of Justice.
        During 1998, the SCCE defended Senate offices in 17 cases (which
    required approximately 6,599 attorney work hours). The SCCE either won
    or successfully negotiated a resolution to 8 of those cases; 2 were
    withdrawn by the complainants after several mediation sessions with the
    SCCE; and 7 are currently pending. Five of the 17 cases were filed in
    U.S. District Courts. This number is significant because one jury trial
    in federal court typically generates over 2,500 attorney work hours per
    year, whereas a 1-day administrative hearing typically generates
    approximately 500-600 work hours.
        Additionally, the SCCE successfully represented Senate employing
    offices in 4 unemployment compensation hearings. In no instance was the
    employee awarded compensation.
    Preventive Legal Advice
        At times, a Senate office will become aware that an employee is
    contemplating suing, and the office will request the SCCE's legal
    advice and/or that the SCCE negotiate with the employee's attorney
    before the employee files a lawsuit. The successful resolution of such
    matters substantially reduces an office's liability.
        Also, the SCCE advises and meets with Members, Chiefs of Staff,
    Office Managers, Staff Directors, Chief Clerks and General Counsels at
    their request. The purpose of the advice and meetings are to prevent
    litigation and to minimize liability in the event of litigation. For
    example, on a daily basis, the SCCE advises Senate offices on matters
    such as disciplining/terminating employees in compliance with the law,
    handling and investigating sexual harassment complaints, accommodating
    the disabled, determining wage law requirements, meeting the
    requirements of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and management's
    rights and obligations under union laws and OSHA.
        Between January and December 1998, the SCCE has had more than 2,066
    conferences with Members, Chiefs of Staff, Office Managers, Staff
    Directors, Chief Clerks and General Counsels to provide legal advice.
    Union Drives, Negotiations And Unfair Labor Practice Charges
        In 1998, the SCCE successfully defeated one union drive and
    assisted in the contract review and collective bargaining negotiations
    of a union that won its election in 1997.
        The SCCE also represents Senate offices when unfair labor charges
    are brought against it. The investigation, negotiation and
    administrative proceedings associated with an unfair labor charge can
    require as many attorney work hours as that of any claims of
    discrimination filed with the Office of Compliance. During 1998, the
    SCCE defended against 3 unfair labor charges brought against Senate
    offices.
    OSHA/ADA Compliance
        The SCCE provides advice and assistance to Senate offices by
    assisting them with complying with the applicable OSHA and ADA
    regulations; representing them during Office of Compliance inspections;
    advising State offices on the preparation of the Office of Compliance's
    Home State OSHA/ADA Inspection Questionnaires; assisting offices in the
    preparation of Emergency Action Plans (in 1998 the SCCE distributed to
    all Senate offices a sample Emergency Action Plan that could easily be
    completed to meet each office's needs); and advising and representing
    Senate offices when a complaint of an OSHA violation has been filed
    with the Office of Compliance or when a citation has been issued.
    Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law
        The SCCE provides legal advice and strategy to individual Senate
    offices regarding how to minimize legal liability in compliance with
    the law when offices reduced their forces.
        In addition, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
    Notification Act (``WARN''), offices that are closing must follow
    certain procedures for notifying their employees of the closing and for
    transitioning them out of the office. The SCCE tracks office closings
    and notifies those offices of their legal obligations under the WARN.
    In 1998, the SCCE advised 8 Senate offices of their legal obligations
    under this law.
    Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities
        In 1998, in an attempt to find a more efficient and cost-effective
    way of providing Members' state offices with necessary management
    training, the SCCE, in conjunction with the Senate Recording Studio,
    introduced in the Senate 2-way interactive internet seminars. This
    process allows the SCCE to give legal seminars to Member offices here
    in D.C. and simultaneously to broadcast them to state offices via the
    internet. The state offices access the seminars (by audio and video) on
    their PC's at no cost to the state offices. The state office
    participants are also connected by telephone cable so that they can
    fully participate in the seminars by asking questions, as would any
    member of the audience in D.C. The SCCE introduced this concept in the
    Senate, and, to date, is the only office that has used the internet in
    this 2-way interactive method. The seminars are extremely cost-
    effective because they eliminate the need for an attorney to travel to
    the state offices, and they reduce legal problems by ensuring that all
    managers understand their legal obligations under the CAA. These
    seminars have been very well received by Member offices; 82 state
    offices participated in 1998.
        The SCCE conducted 63 legal seminars during 1998. Most of these
    seminars were broadcast simultaneously over the internet to state
    offices. Among the topics covered was ``Preventing and Addressing
    Sexual Harassment in the Workplace.'' That topic was necessitated by
    two recent Supreme Court decisions.
        Additional seminars the SCCE conducted for Senate office managers
    were: The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: What Managers Need
    to Know About Their Rights and Obligations; Managers' Obligations Under
    the Family and Medical Leave Act; The Legal Pitfalls of Hiring the
    Right Employee: Advertising, Interviewing, Drug Testing and Background
    Checks; Disciplining, Evaluating and Terminating an Employee Without
    Violating Employment Laws; Management's Obligations Under the Americans
    With Disabilities Act; and Equal Pay for Equal Work: Management's
    Obligations Under the Equal Pay Act.
        Also, in December 1998, the SCCE provided an extensive overview of
    a Senate office's legal obligations under the CAA to the Senators-Elect
    and their Chiefs of Staff during the Secretary of the Senate's
    orientation program. During this presentation the SCCE provided the
    Senators-Elect and their staff with a quick reference guide entitled
    ``Organizing and Managing a Senate Office in Compliance with the Law,''
    as well as other written materials to assist the Senators-Elect in
    setting up their new offices. In January 1999, the SCCE provided a
    similar presentation to all Office Managers, both new and existing, to
    review a Senate office's legal obligations under the CAA.
        Finally, the SCCE continues to publish its bi-monthly newsletter
    that it distributes to all Senate offices. The newsletter is designed
    to provide Senate offices with information concerning developments in
    labor and employment laws.
    Administrative/Miscellaneous Matters
        The SCCE provides legal assistance to employing offices in
    preparing employee handbooks/office policies, supervisors' manuals,
    sample job descriptions, interviewing guidelines, and job evaluation
    forms.
        The SCCE also reviews all regulations issued by the Office of
    Compliance and advises the Senate as to whether the regulations should
    be approved, modified, or not approved.
                    office of conservation and preservation
        The Office of Conservation and Preservation develops and
    coordinates programs directly related to the conservation and
    preservation of Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of
    the Senate has statutory authority. Initiatives include mass
    deacidification, phased conservation for books and documents,
    collection surveys, and contingency planning for disaster response and
    recovery.
    Work Prepared for Senate Leadership
        For more than twenty years the office has bound a copy Washington's
    Farewell Address for the annual Washington's Farewell Address ceremony.
    This year, a volume was bound for and read by Senator Mary Landrieu.
        At the direction of the Secretary of the Senate, and through the
    Office of Interparliamentary Services, marbled paper slipcases were
    fabricated for the book, The United States Capitol: Photographs by Fred
    J. Maroon, and were presented to 18 dignitaries during Senate Trips.
        At the request of the Senate Democratic Leadership, 48 folders were
    embossed with the name of each Senator. Six hundred thirty-five items
    were matted and framed, this included resolutions, photographs, and
    letters.
        The office fabricated 12 leather bound notebooks for the Senate
    Majority Leader and one for the Assistant Majority Leader.
        In conjunction with the newly created Leader's Lecture Series, the
    office prepared several presentation pieces. Each guest speaker
    received a leather bound box for speeches, a leather bound notebook,
    and a matted and framed rare print. In addition, photographs
    representing each speakers careers were matted and framed for display
    at the reception following each historic speech. This years guest
    speakers included The Honorable Mike Mansfield, The Honorable Howard H.
    Baker, Jr., and The Honorable Robert C. Byrd.
    Senate Library
        In 1998 conservation treatments were completed for 421 volumes of a
    7,000 volume collection. Also this year, the office prepared and sent
    668 books from the Senate Library to the Government Printing Office
    (GPO) for binding.
        In a effort to preserve valuable nineteenth-century Senate
    documents, the Office of Conservation and Presentation, in cooperation
    with the Senate Library, rebound a complete set of the Annals of
    Congress, the Congressional Debates From 1789-1824. These volumes are
    very rare. While the Senate Library has several sets in storage, every
    volume is in need of major repair and restoration. The Office of
    Conservation and Preservation will continue in 1999 to assist the
    Senate Library in their effort to save these irreplaceable historical
    documents.
    Office of the Senate Curator
        The office assisted the Office of the Senate Curator in the
    preparation and installation of museum quality exhibition labels for a
    public presentation of 30 black and white photographs.
        At the direction of the Office of the Senate Curator, the office
    installed 14 oversized black and white photographs of Capitol images.
    These photographs were eventually displayed in Hart 902.
    Miscellaneous Projects
        The office continues to utilize its spray deacidification system,
    encapsulation, and dry mounting press. This year the office deacidified
    43 items, encapsulated 59 items, and dry mounted 177 items.
        The office continues conservation treatment of Appropriation Bills
    1877-1943. This year the office completed 36 books. There are
    approximately 260 books remaining for treatment. These books are apart
    of the Appropriations Committee collection.
                           office of senate security
        The Office of Senate Security (OSS) is responsible for the
    administration of classified information, personnel security,
    counterintelligence and classified computer security programs in Senate
    offices and committees. OSS also serves as the Senate's liaison to the
    Executive Branch in matters relating to the security of classified
    information in the Senate.
    Classified Meetings
        OSS secure conference facilities were utilized on 987 occasions
    during 1997. This is a 4 percent increase in the utilization of OSS
    facilities over 1997 levels. Four hundred fifteen hearings, meetings or
    briefings were conducted in OSS' three conference rooms. In addition,
    OSS provided Senators and staff secure telephones, secure computers, a
    secure facsimile machine and secure areas for reading classified
    material on 572 occasions in 1998.
    Document Control
        The Senate received or generated 3,704 classified documents
    consisting of 158,711 pages during 1998. This is an 8 percent increase
    in the number of documents received during 1997. Overall, Senate
    Security completed 7,614 document transactions and handled 318,389
    pages of classified material during calendar year 1998.
    Personnel Security
        OSS workload in the personnel security area remained steady during
    1998. Personnel security investigations were initiated on 139 Senate
    employees. Seventy-five investigations were completed, and the
    remainder of the investigations (64) are pending completion by the
    Department of Defense or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. OSS also
    completed 116 routine security clearance termination actions during
    1998.
    Security Education
        OSS conducted or hosted 65 security briefings for Senate staff.
    Topics covered included: information security, counterintelligence,
    security managers' responsibilities; office security management; and
    introductory security briefings.
                             senate stationery room
        The Senate Stationery Room provides stationery items for sale to
    Senate offices and others authorized to use the service. The Stationery
    Room maintains an inventory and selects a variety of stationery items
    adequate to meet the needs of the Senate personnel, maintains
    individual stationery accounts for Senators, Committees, and Offices,
    issues bills and statements and receives reimbursement for all
    purchases, delivers merchandise to Senatorial offices, and advertises
    for bids and awards contracts for Senate stationery supplies.

    Fiscal Year 1998 Statistical Operations

    Gross Sales...................................................$3,000,341
    Sales Transactions............................................    89,897
    Generated Purchase Orders.....................................     6,073
    Vouchers Processed............................................     7,481
    Metro Fare Media Sold.........................................     6,709

        The reporting categories for statistical operations of the
    Stationery Room for fiscal year 1998 saw increases in these categories:
    Sales transactions were up by 330. Vouchers processed for vendor
    payments were up by 109. Metro Fare Media sold were up by 1,085.
        The Stationery Room and the Operation Division reviewed the new
    procedure in which a flag will be inserted into a Tyvek envelope,
    sealed, mailing label and postage tape placed on the front of the
    envelope. The benefits are: the Tyvek envelopes are supplied by the
    Postal Service to the Operations Divisions and the envelopes store flat
    thus using less space; the time spent in packaging each flag will be
    greatly reduced; the UPS will deliver the flags in 2 to 3 days instead
    of 10 to 14 days (Parcel Post), and since these packages will have a
    like appearance to all other Priority mail, fewer flags will be lost
    and will save some time in tracking lost flags. This process will make
    mailing the flags easier and more efficient.
        By direction of the Secretary of the Senate and the Rules
    Committee, the Metro Fare Subsidy was increased from $21 to $40 on
    November 1, 1998. This has led to a significant increase in the use of
    Metro.
        Fiscal year 1998 was a very busy year for the Stationery Room
    staff. The Stationery Room has undertaken a remodeling project in
    conjunction with its Y2K update. Since it would be necessary to
    establish new computer cables and locations for new computers in the
    Stationery Room with a certain amount of disruption to the sales area,
    it was determined that this would be a time to remodel. This project
    was predicted to take about four months without interrupting daily
    sales. The Stationery Room has not had a face lift of this proportion
    since it moved the entire operation from the Russell building to the
    Dirksen building in 1980, approximately nineteen years ago.
        With the work of the Secretary of the Senate, Rules Committee and
    the Architect of the Capitol, this project is turning into a great
    success. The Stationery Room has been able to replace damaged shelving,
    paint the entire store, pull new computer cables to work stations and
    replace the drab worn carpet with new carpeting. The new look of the
    Stationery Room is clean, modern and professional.
        Between February and April of 1999, the Stationery Room will have
    completed its testing and installation of its Y2K software, giving it a
    complete revised look and operation for the twenty-first century.
                          interparliamentary services
        The Office of Interparliamentary Services is responsible for
    administrative, financial, and protocol functions for all
    interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate participates by
    statute, for interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate
    participates on an ad hoc basis, and for special delegations authorized
    by the Majority and/or Minority Leaders. The office also provides
    appropriate assistance as requested by other Senate delegations.
        The statutory interparliamentary conferences are: North Atlantic
    Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group; Canada-United
    States Interparliamentary Group; and British-American Parliamentary
    Group.
        In May, the 39th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group was held in Nantucket, Massachusetts.
    Arrangements for this successful event were handled by the IPS staff.
        As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the
    Leadership is arranged by the IPS staff. In addition to delegation
    trips, IPS provided assistance to 11 individual foreign trips. Several
    other trips were scheduled, but were canceled or postponed after most
    of the advance work had been completed. Also, Senators and staff
    authorized by committees for foreign travel continue to call upon this
    office for assistance with passports, visas, travel arrangements, and
    reporting requirements.
        IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial
    reports for foreign travel from all committees in the Senate. In
    addition to preparing the quarterly reports for the Majority Leader,
    the Minority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore, IPS staff also
    assist staff members of Senators and committees in filling out the
    required reports.
        Known by many in the Senate as the ``protocol office'',
    Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the Office
    of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, and with foreign embassy
    officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently received in this
    office and assistance is given to individuals as well as to groups by
    the IPS staff. The staff continues to work closely with other offices
    of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms in arranging
    programs for foreign visitors. In addition, IPS is frequently consulted
    by individual Senators' offices on a broad range of protocol questions.
    Occasional questions come from state officials or the general public
    regarding Congressional protocol.
        On behalf of the Leadership, the staff arranges receptions in the
    Senate for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments,
    and parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on
    behalf of foreign visitors under authority of Public Law 100-71 are
    maintained in the Office of Interparliamentary Services.
        Planning is underway for the 38th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
    Interparliamentary Group and the British-American Parliamentary Group
    Meeting, both to be held in the United States in 1999. Advance work,
    including site inspection, will be undertaken for the 41st Annual
    Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group Meeting, to be held in the United
    States in 2000.
                                senate gift shop
        The Senate Gift Shop provides services to Senators, Senate spouses,
    staff, visiting constituents and U.S. Capitol visitors. Products
    available include a wide variety of souvenir items and fine gifts.
    Services provided include the distribution of educational materials and
    the sale of special order products, custom framing, embossing,
    engraving, and shipping.
        This year's Congressional Holiday Ornament has proven to be a most
    popular collectors item. This was the first ornament of a four-year
    series depicting the early years of the United States Congress.
        Sales of the 105th Congressional plate, The Bicentennial
    Cornerstone plate, and the Tiffany Round box continue to be good.
        In the fall of 1998, the Gift Shop established an Engraving
    Department, allowing better control of the quality and speed of this
    popular service. This state-of-the-art computer driven equipment
    purchased by the Gift Shop will serve for many years to come.
        A major portion of the growth in sales is directly related to
    increases in special order and phone order sales. This continuing
    growth is being supported by the new Shipping Department which was
    equipped with a computerized labeling and tracking system last year.
        Computer upgrades in 1999 will allow replacement of personal
    computers with upgraded machines and software systems. The computers
    (cash registers) currently used at point of sale locations will also be
    replaced and software and screen menus redesigned to better serve sales
    and inventory needs.
                            office of public records
        The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains
    records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the
    Senate involving the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended; the
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995; the Senate Code of Official Conduct:
    Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure; Rule 35, Senate Gift Rule
    filings; Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing; Rule 41, Political Fund
    Designees; and Rule 41(6), Supervisor's Reports on Individuals
    Performing Senate Services; and Foreign Travel Reports.
    Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended
        The Act required 1998 Senate candidates to file quarterly and pre-
    election reports, and Senate candidates running in a year other than
    1998 to file semi-annual reports. Filings totaled 8,374 documents
    containing 95,103 pages.
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
        As of September 30, 1998, 4,422 registrants represented 11,813
    clients and employed 18,590 individuals who met the statutory
    definition of ``lobbyist.'' 21,329 lobbying registrations and reports
    totaling 82,349 pages were received and made available to the public.
    Public Financial Disclosure
        The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 15,
    1998. The reports were available to the public and press by Friday,
    June 12th. A total of 2,512 reports and amendments were filed
    containing 12,982 pages. There were 360 requests to review or receive
    copies of the documents.
    Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule)
        Effective January 1, 1998, the office revised the Senate Rule 35
    travel forms, combining two employee forms into one combined form. The
    Senate Office of Public Records has received over 1,500 reports
    totaling 2,000 pages during fiscal year 1998.
    Registration of Mass Mailing
        Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis.
    The number of pages were 569.
    Public Inquiries
        From October, 1997, through September, 1998, the Public Records
    office staff assisted more than 3,100 individuals seeking information
    from reports filed with the office. This figure does not include
    telephone assistance. A total of 148,198 photocopies were sold in the
    period.
    Automation Activities
        During fiscal year 1998, Public Financial Disclosure reports were
    scanned using optical imaging technology. Starting with documents
    received after January 1, 1998, lobbying reports were also scanned, and
    the office greatly expanded the amount of information available to the
    public regarding the activities of lobbyists. Efforts to allow
    lobbyists to file electronically, as well as to allow the public to
    retrieve filings and data electronically were postponed to insure that
    a new campaign finance system would be operational and Y2K compliant.
                               historical office
        Serving as the institutional memory of the Senate, the Historical
    Office collects and provides information on important events,
    precedents, dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current
    and past Senate activities for use by members and staff, the media,
    scholars, and the general public. The Office advises senators,
    officers, and committees on cost-effective disposition of their non-
    current office files and assists researchers in identifying Senate-
    related source materials. The Office keeps extensive biographical,
    bibliographical, photographic, and archival information on the more
    than 1,700 former senators. It edits for publication historically
    significant transcripts and minutes of selected Senate committees and
    party organizations, and conducts oral history interviews with retired
    senior Senate staff.
    Leader's Lecture Series
        Majority Leader Trent Lott initiated the Leader's Lecture Series,
    providing a forum for outstanding former Senate leaders and other
    distinguished Americans to share their insights about the recent
    history and long-term practices of the Senate. Beginning on March 24,
    1998, the lectures have been held in the historic Old Senate Chamber
    before an audience of current Senators and specially invited guests
    from the executive branch, the diplomatic corps, the media, and private
    enterprise. The Senate Historical Office, in coordination with the
    Office of Senate Curator and other offices under the jurisdiction of
    the Secretary, has provided editorial and production support for the
    1998 lectures of former Majority Leaders Mike Mansfield, Howard Baker,
    and Robert C. Byrd, as well as the January 20, 1999, lecture by former
    President George Bush. Text of all four lectures is now available on
    the Senate web site and will soon be published as a book.
    Editorial Projects
        A History of the Democratic Policy Committee, 1947-1997: To
    commemorate the fiftieth anniversaries of the Senate Republican and
    Democratic Policy Committees, the Historical Office has prepared
    narrative histories of the committees, their members, their staffs, and
    their impact on legislation in the U.S. Senate. In 1997 the Government
    Printing Office published the first of these two volumes, A History of
    the Senate Republican Policy Committee, 1947-1997 (Senate Document 105-
    5). Work is nearing completion on the Democratic Policy Committee's
    companion volume.
        Minutes of the Republican and Democratic Party Conferences, 1903-
    1964: In 1992 the Senate's party leaders agreed to a recommendation of
    the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress that the Historical
    Office preserve, edit, and publish the official minutes of each party
    conference, dating from the start of the twentieth century to a period
    thirty years before the present. The Office has now completed work on a
    volume for each conference. Early in 1999, the Government Printing
    Office will produce a 700-page volume of Democratic Conference minutes,
    covering the years 1903 through 1964. A companion volume for Republican
    Conference minutes spanning 1911 through 1964 will appear later in the
    year.
        Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-1999:
    The Office has revised and updated Senate entries in the Biographical
    Directory of the United States Congress. Since its last print
    publication in 1989, more than half of the database's 1,851 Senate
    entries have been revised or updated, and dozens of new entries have
    been added. Although the next decennial print edition is scheduled for
    publication in 2000, a current version of the database is now available
    online at http://bioguide.congress.gov.
    Oral History Program
        The Historical Office opened for scholarly research the transcripts
    of oral history interviews with Kelly D. Johnston, former Secretary of
    the Senate and staff director of the Senate Republican Policy
    Committee. A series of interviews with Charles Ferris, former staff
    director of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, were also completed
    and are being processed. Additional interviews were also conducted,
    including a series with C. Abbott Saffold, former Senate Democratic
    Secretary.
    Member Services
        ``Senate Historical Minutes'': At the request of the Senate
    Democratic Leader, the historian prepared and delivered a ``Senate
    Historical Minute'' at each of fifty-six Senate Democratic Conference
    weekly meetings during the 105th Congress. These 300-word ``minutes''
    are designed to enlighten members about significant events and
    personalities associated with the Senate's institutional development.
    Most of the ``minutes'' were subsequently published the day following
    delivery in The Hill newspaper. Those prepared in 1997 were assembled
    during 1998 in a booklet entitled Thirty Minutes of Senate History.
    These and future ``minutes'' will be available as a feature on the
    Senate's redesigned home page.
        Senators' Office Records Management and Disposition Assistance: The
    Historical Office assisted members' offices that closed at the end of
    the 105th Congress with planning for the preservation of their
    historical records. Briefings included guidance on archiving
    information from computer systems, assistance with selecting a
    repository, and identification of which information is appropriate for
    historical preservation. All offices of retiring members transferred
    their member's papers to a designated research repository of the
    member's choice. Special assistance was given to defeated incumbents by
    assisting staff with identifying an appropriate repository and focusing
    on the preservation of the core collections.
        Records Management Handbook for United States Senators and Their
    Archival Repositories: The Historical Office issued an extensively
    revised edition of this publication, which features new information on
    the care and management of electronic records.
    Educational Outreach
        Senate Office Building Brochures: Senators, staff, and visitors
    frequently seek information on the history and functions of the three
    Senate office buildings. To address this recurring need, the Historical
    Office produced an illustrated brochure for each structure. Copies will
    be distributed through each member's office and from a central location
    within the respective buildings.
        ``This Month In Senate History'': Since September 1996, the Office
    has produced a Senate home page feature entitled ``This Month in Senate
    History.'' The entries for each month highlight approximately twenty
    institutionally significant events that have occurred during that month
    throughout more than 200 years of Senate history. Starting in May 1997,
    the Office also produced a brochure containing the same information,
    which is provided to Senate offices for distribution to constituents
    and other visitors.
        Senate Home Page Redesign: The Historical Office contributed the
    following features to the recently redesigned Senate Web page:
      --A brief history of the U.S. Senate and a chronology of the
            institution's history.
      --An introduction to the Office's large photo collection, with
            information about ordering photos, copyright issues, and
            resources for researchers.
      --A description of the ongoing oral history project, with full text
            and excerpted text from past oral histories available online.
      --Information on each state and its unique relationship to the
            Senate.
      --Statistical tables.
      --A collection of Senate ``briefings'' outlining the Senate's role in
            such duties as nominations, treaties, and impeachments.
      --A collection of ``historical minutes,'' brief vignettes about
            Senate history.
      --Access to the new online version of the Biographical Directory of
            the United States Congress, which includes information from the
            Guide to Research Collections of Former United States Senators
            and Senators of the United States: A Historical Bibliography.
    Photographic Collections
        The Historical Office continued to expand its 30,000-item
    photograph collection by creating a photographic record of historically
    significant Senate events, and by actively seeking photographs of
    former senators. In addition to maintaining and adding to the Office's
    image collection, the photo historian provided photographic reference
    service to the media, congressional offices, academic researchers, and
    the general public. The Office's newly acquired imaging software
    allowed the photo historian to digitize a number of items in the
    collection, a process that will help preserve frequently used
    photographs by storing them in an easily accessible format. Photographs
    can now be scanned, viewed in electronic format, and sent via e-mail.
                            office of senate curator
        The Office of Senate Curator, under the direction of the Senate
    Commission on Art, administers the museum programs of the Senate for
    the Capitol and Senate office buildings. The Curator and staff suggest
    acquisitions, provide appropriate exhibits, engage in research, and
    write and edit publications. In addition, the office studies,
    identifies, arranges, protects, preserves, and records the historical
    collections of the Senate, including paintings, sculpture, and
    furnishings; and exercises supervisory responsibility for those
    chambers in the Capitol under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commission
    on Art.
    Exhibitions and Publications
        The initiative to standardize the design of the Secretary's
    educational publications moved forward successfully, with a total of 14
    brochures printed in the new format. Publications produced by the
    office included: The Brumidi Corridors, Senate Art in Stamps; and The
    Vice Presidential Bust Collection. The long awaited Guide to Senate Art
    progressed considerably. New signage was developed for several rooms,
    providing visitors with information on these historic spaces, and
    identification labels were installed for the Vice Presidential Bust
    Collection.
    Historic Chambers
        The Curator's staff continued to maintain the Old Supreme Court and
    Old Senate Chambers, coordinating periodic use of both rooms for
    special occasions. The latter chamber was used for three evening
    lectures as part of Senator Lott's Leader's Lecture Series.
    Collections: Acquisitions and Management
        The staff processed 20 loans for the Senate leadership, and
    continued to loan and monitor the 450 reproduction prints in the Senate
    collection. The office received and catalogued 13 foreign gifts
    accepted from various foreign governments; a system for promoting the
    transfer of these gifts was established, and 11 gifts were transferred
    to appropriate depositories. The most extensive physical inventory to
    date of the Senate collection was conducted this year using a computer
    generated master list of all collection objects created in the SNAP!
    data base.
    Conservation and Restoration
        Several significant paintings and frames received conservation
    treatment, including Patrick Henry by George Matthews and The Battle of
    Lake Erie by William H. Powell. Four marble sculptures were
    substantially restored, and 25 other marble busts were professionally
    cleaned and conserved. A new maintenance schedule was implemented to
    improve the long-term care of the sculpture in the Senate collection.
    Similarly, a training series was initiated to provide the staff of the
    Sergeant at Arms with information on the care and handling of these
    works of art.
        A five-year project to restore the 100 Senate Chamber desks was
    began this fall, and the first ten desks were restored. Also part of
    the project, was the modification to install unobtrusive bumpers on the
    end of each Senate Chamber chair arm to better protect the desks from
    damage.
    Collaborations, Educational Programs, Events
        The staff supported the Senate's seminar program by presenting
    periodic addresses on various aspects of the Senate's art and history.
    In a collaborative effort with several offices, the staff participated
    in the development of a four-part program, titled ``Congress & the
    Capitol: Tour Guide Series,'' designed for individuals who conduct
    tours of the Capitol for constituents.
    Automation
        The Senate launched a new Virtual Tour of the Capitol at the Senate
    web site, and the staff contributed substantially to this endeavor. A
    new interactive kiosk was installed in the Senate wing of the Capitol.
    Titled ``Welcome to the Digital U.S. Capitol,'' the kiosk provides
    visitors with pertinent information on their state senator, and the art
    in the Capitol related to their state. The staff also worked closely
    with other Senate offices on the redesigned Senate web site.
    Objectives For 1999
        Conservation concerns continue to be a priority, with plans to
    conserve additional Senate Chamber desks, frescoes, several historic
    mirrors, five paintings with frames, five sculptures, furniture for the
    Senate Library, and to begin the first phase of conservation of the Old
    Supreme Court Chamber furnishings. Two new exhibitions are scheduled,
    along with additional explanatory pylons for several historic rooms.
    Progress will continue on the Guide to Senate Art. Work will proceed on
    the comprehensive disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plan
    for the Senate collection. A collections management and care policy
    will be developed, and a training manual produced. The office will
    complete a comprehensive strategic plan for the Senate Commission on
    Art, and a Senate Preservation Task Force will be established to
    develop long-term preservation and interpretive policies for the
    Capitol. Projects will be developed for the year 2000 to celebrate the
    200th anniversary of the first meeting of Congress in the Capitol.
                               senate page school
        The United States Senate Page School exists to provide a smooth
    transition from and to the students' home schools, providing those
    students with as sound a program, both academically and experientially,
    as possible during their stay in the nation's capital, within the
    limits of the constraints imposed by the work situation.
    Summary of accomplishments
        The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools granted the
    Page School accreditation for the next ten years.
        Staff attended a number of staff development workshops including
    computer classes, Advanced Placement training, subject matter specific
    seminars, and a leadership conference. Foreign language tutoring was
    provided to students in French, Spanish, German, Latin, and Russian.
    Staff provided a PSAT preparation course for Pages. New, more sturdy
    computer work tables were provided.
        During the Senate recess, school hours were expanded and many field
    trips were taken to extend the educational experience of Pages. A trip
    to Philadelphia included visits to Independence Hall and the Liberty
    Bell. Local trips included the National Archives and Mount Vernon. Many
    speakers were added to the schedule, including the Senate
    Parliamentarian, the Senate Historian, the Senate Curator, and the
    Senate Librarian. Much of the history and legislative process of the
    Senate was shared with the Pages. Theater outings were also arranged to
    CATS, Barrymore, and The Nutcracker.
        New equipment included a CD player and a LCD projector. A new
    textbook, Problem Solving Strategies, was purchased for math students
    to use. Software to be used in Chemistry and Physics, the Calculator
    Based Laboratory for data acquisition and analysis, was purchased.
        The closing ceremony for first semester Pages took place on January
    22, 1999. New Pages arrived on January 25, 1999.
    Summary of plans
        Needs of the incoming Pages are assessed immediately and a schedule
    devised to meet their needs. Foreign language tutors are obtained and
    field trips are planned as time allows.
        Attention will continue to be given to the suggestions in the
    accreditation report of the Middle States Association of Colleges and
    Schools. Advanced Placement training for all staff who have not
    previously received it will be provided as recommended.
        Staff development opportunities will continue to be utilized,
    particularly in content areas. All courses will be reviewed for
    curriculum improvement purposes and materials used will be reviewed as
    well. Software will be investigated as a means by which curriculum
    delivery can be enhanced.
                              information systems
        The staff of the Department of Information Systems provides
    technical hardware and software support for the Office of the Secretary
    of the Senate. Information Systems staff also interface closely with
    the Government Printing Office (GPO), the Senate Computer Center (SCC),
    and the Senate Office of Telecommunications (Telecom) on technical
    issues and joint projects. The Department provides computer related
    support for the nineteen LAN-based servers in the Office of the
    Secretary of the Senate (three Novell Servers; sixteen Windows NT
    Servers; a proprietary retail computer system in the Stationery Room).
    Mission Evaluation
        The primary mission of Information Systems Department is to
    continue to provide a high sustained level of customer satisfaction and
    computer support of all departments with the Secretary of the Senate.
    Emphasis is placed on the creation and transfer of legislation to
    outside departments and agencies. In May and June of 1998, department
    interviews, and goals were assessed, hardware and software applications
    were analyzed, and Year 2000 hardware evaluations initiated.
    Improvements to the Secretary's LAN's
        The Senate had chosen Windows NT as the standard network operating
    system in 1997. The immediate support strategy in May of 1998 was to
    enhance existing hardware and software support within the Information
    Systems Department, and augment support from the Sergeant at Arms
    whenever required. The following chart notes the installation of nine
    additional servers in 1998. The Office of the Secretary Network
    encompasses approximately 380 users in the Capitol, the Senate Hart and
    Dirksen Buildings, and the Page School. The LAN operating system is 84
    percent Microsoft based and 16 percent Novell based server software.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           NT/     Novell
                              Department                             NT/PDC    NT/BDC    Single      4.x     Totals
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Information Systems...........................................         1     \1\ 1     \1\ 2         1         5
    Disbursing....................................................     \1\ 1         1         1  ........         3
    Library.......................................................     \1\ 1  ........  ........         1         2
    Printing and Document Services................................  ........  ........  \1\ \2\   ........         1
                                                                                               1
    Official Reporters............................................  ........  ........  ........         1         1
    Employment Counsel............................................         1     \1\ 1  ........  ........         2
    Page School...................................................         1  ........  ........  ........         1
    Stationery Store/Gift Shop....................................     \1\ 1     \1\ 1     \1\ 1  ........         3
    Senate Security...............................................         1  ........  ........  ........         1
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Totals..................................................         7         3         6         3        19
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NT/PDC--Primary Domain Controllers. Systems Installed in 1998.
    NT/BDC--Backup Domain Controllers. Information current as of 2/18/1999.
    \2\ Q2/99.

        Support staff of the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary continue to
    work closely together to support the current LEGIS system, and take an
    a more active role in the current LIS project. In September of 1998,
    the Amendment Tracking application was removed from the Secretary's NT
    Primary Domain Controller. A separate Windows NT Server was added to
    the Secretary's LAN, the hardware and software was configured by
    Secretary staff members, and working with SAA support personnel, an
    updated version of Amendment Tracking software was installed in August
    1998.
        Several additional resources were made available for use by the
    Secretary staff; laptop computers for remote dial-in access to the
    Secretary's LAN, access software to manage NT servers remotely, and
    laptop upgrades for the Legislative and Bill clerk to utilize on the
    chamber floor.
        Several departments have had repetitive tasks automated using the
    macro scripting language in Word Perfect. For the most part, these
    macros are in place to simplify the Windows95 operating system. These
    macros were designed to copy and transfer files from one folder to
    another. These scripts can be replaced by providing staff members with
    a additional training in Windows95.
        Several Departments, namely Disbursing, Office of Public Records,
    Chief Counsel for Employment, Page School, Senate Library, Senate
    Security, and Stationery/Gift Shop have dedicated systems
    administrators and NT servers installed. In most cases, the separate
    systems hold unique applications, and isolated LAN's are set up for
    security reasons. Information Systems continues to provide hardware and
    software support for these department as required and assist in project
    upgrades.
        Disaster Preparedness Plans were established to protect software
    media in 1998. Information Systems now utilizes a fire proof safe to
    properly secure and store software media.
    Captioning Services (ST-54)
        The Official Reporters and Captioning services departments utilize
    a separate Novell server. They use specialized software called Computer
    Aided Transcription (CAT) for translating their steno code into
    English. In June of 1998, beta software was evaluated as a possible
    replacement for the older Xscribe CAT software. Also in 1998, the
    Compaq DOS based clients were dual-configured with Windows95, verified
    as Y2K compliant and in July 1998 the internal clocks moved forward to
    the Year 2000.
        Closed caption information was then sent to the Senate Recording
    Studio. While the current operation is qualified as Y2K compliant,
    there are several minor constraints, namely file naming conventions
    that must be used in 2000. New hardware and software will be installed
    in 1999 as soon as replacement software is available.
    Official Reporters of debates (ST-41/44)
        The Reporters and Captioning personnel utilize the same caption
    software, with the exception that Captioning Services sends encoded
    output to the Senate Recording Studio, and Reporters send WordPerfect
    files to the Government Printing Office. GPO Detailees add at the final
    stage, added code for MicroComp formats prior to transferring the files
    to GPO. The Reporters are the only office currently who do not run
    Windows95 environments. In March 1999, the Reporter software is being
    upgraded to allow a dual-boot operation between Xscribe and normal
    Win95 applications. This operation has been tested previously in
    Captioning Services.
    The Senate Gift Shop LAN (in two separate locations)
        At the request of GAO, for security reasons, the Gift Shop LAN and
    the Stationery LAN must be isolated from each other and neither
    connected to the Secretary's LAN. The Gift Shop LAN houses the
    inventory and transaction records for the Gift Shop. In August of 1998,
    an NT Server was installed by Info systems staff as a Primary Domain
    controller. Working with Telecom, SAA, and Stationery staff and
    consultants, the necessary fault-tolerant components were installed,
    and networking requirements identified to replace the current MAI
    mainframe. In December 1998, Info systems staff developed a standard
    software template, and procedure to install new NT clients. The current
    schedule is to replace the existing MAI mainframe and all existing PC's
    in Q1/99 with Y2K compliant hardware and software. Y2K Testing will
    commence in Q2/99.
    The Page School LAN
        The Page School currently has a Windows NT LAN, server version
    3.51. This software version will be upgraded to version 4.0 in 1999.
    Additional hardware and software scanning capabilities were added in
    September 1999. Typical users include the administrative staff,
    teachers, and students. Administrative staff use the Blackbaud program
    for students records and grades. These records are confidential. In
    1998, a new systems administrator joined the Page School, and
    networking protocols were established to administer this NT Server by
    Info system staff remotely from the Capitol. This adds quicker response
    to support questions and problems as they arise.
    The Office of Senate Security LAN
        The Office of Senate Security inventories and tracks all classified
    information that comes into the Senate. In the Fall of 1996 their
    system was completely upgraded from a Novell system to a new Windows NT
    LAN with top-of-the-line equipment and a new Document Management System
    was purchased. For security reasons, the computer systems in Senate
    Security cannot be connected to any other system in the Senate so two
    PC's connected to the Secretary's LAN (and not to their LAN) have been
    installed so that staff can have access to cc:mail and the INTERNET.
    Cc:mail upgrades were performed to bring the client version up to at
    least version 6.x.
    The Senate Disbursing Office LAN
        By the end of September 1998, during the second hardware
    installation phase, fifty new Windows95 clients were installed in
    Disbursing. No additional changes have occurred with respect to the NT
    Server operation. Also in September, Info system staff resources were
    allocated to assist with the installation of client software for all
    member offices. In October 1998, staff analyzed the NT servers and
    found the following; One Primary Domain Controller (Doves) running SQL
    database is installed in its own domain called \\DO1-SQL\Doves. A
    second Primary Domain Controller is called \\SCC-DO\DO1. The later
    authenticates all standard user account logins, while the Doves Server
    supplies the SQL database information for client connectivity. The
    issue is simply that Windows NT thinks that both servers have the same
    hardware identification. Additionally, a software trust relationship
    must be intact for users to gain accessed to Doves. Should the trust
    relationship decay, network resources are lost. Meeting with SAA
    customer support and the Disbursing system administrator in November
    98, an upgraded NT server hardware configuration was identified and
    ordered from SAA. On February 17, 1999 the upgraded NT server was
    installed in the DO. Additionally Windows NT server software was
    reinstalled on the Doves server correcting the above problems. With
    this initial phase complete, the remainder of the project involves
    adding application and printing services to the new NT server, and
    retiring the original server. This process in on-going and will be
    accomplished in Q2 of 1999.
    The Office of Public Records (OPR)
        OPR uses FileNet, a UNIX-based document management and imaging
    system, for maintaining public records such as lobbying forms; campaign
    finance reports; and financial disclosure reports. PC's are available
    to the public for searching, viewing, and printing these documents.
    These six patron systems are scheduled to be replaced in Q2/99. The
    FileNet workflow system includes scanning the original document into
    the database, inputting some data regarding the document, and then
    microfilming it for archival purposes.
        A working group had been established to tackle the many issues
    currently facing OPR, including: upgrading the System Hardware and the
    FileNet; In Q3/98 the server software was upgraded to NT4.0, allowing
    the FileNet application software to be ported to the next higher Y2K
    compliant version.
    Bill Clerk (S-123)
        After an existing ATS software glitch caused a major system error
    to the Secretary's NT server in July 1998, a replacement Amendment
    Tracking server was installed in August with upgraded software to index
    and print amendments processed by the Bill Clerk. This server now
    resides in ST-58 and is monitored by SOS for correct performance during
    peak work periods. Scanned amendments are processed automatically by
    the Bill Clerk and personnel in the Copy Center, and printed via the
    network to the Enrolling Clerk, and Daily Digest. Network Printers were
    also allocated and tested for amendment printing in the Reporters
    office. Amendments are then previewed and committed and sent via the
    Senate Fiber Network for posting on the Senate Web server.
    Enrolling Clerk (S-139)
        In May of 1998, the Government Printing Office, in conjunction with
    the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel, moved Senate legislative
    documents from a DEC-VAX mainframe located at GPO, to a secure HTTP Web
    server located at SOLC. A separate DECNET PC client which previously
    used DECNET LAT Services networking protocol, was replaced with a
    Windows95 Netscape client to retrieve information directly from SOLC.
    The DEC Mainframe was still utilized until July 1998, when it was
    disconnected at GPO. In August 1998, separate FTP accounts were
    established at GPO to insure that the Enrolling Clerk can retrieve
    documents from GPO, Senate Legislative Counsel, and the House Enrolling
    Clerk offices.
    Journal Clerk (S-135)
        With the disconnection of the DEC mainframe noted above, the
    Journal Clerk could no longer retrieve the previous days Congressional
    Record from GPO. After several meetings in August, new networking
    accounts were established to transfer files electronically from the
    Senate to GPO. Effectively, file transfer protocol via the CAPNET
    ETHERNET/INTERNET are now used in place of the previous DEC-NET/Novell
    proprietary gateways. A non-Y2K compliant PC was replaced and upgraded
    in the Journal Clerk office in September 1998, and now files can be
    viewed for accuracy before they are transferred from GPO. In the past
    no error correction was in place.
        In December 1998, beta testing continued for replacing the `` two
    PC's'' for every clerk to one single Windows95 client that will execute
    WordPerfect and Ventura applications to produce camera-ready Journal
    output to be sent to GPO for publication.
    Morning Business/Daily Digest/Official Reporters
        On July 30, 1998 when GPO disconnected the SOLC DEC VAX mainframe
    at their facility, all Senate legislation file transfers stopped. It
    was not clear to either SOLC or GPO, that this would happen. Reporters,
    Daily Digest, and Morning Business files were sent via floppy diskette
    to GPO for processing. During the August recess, working with SAA and
    GPO, individual FTP accounts were established for Morning Business,
    Daily Digest, and Reporters. By activating separate accounts at GPO for
    each department, files are now transferred electronically and verified
    at the time of transfer. Log files are verified and track each
    electronic transfer. The older SOS gateway was replaced with a standard
    Windows95 client, running FTP across CAPNET. This new gateway process
    is verified as Y2K compliant. In the event of a gateway failure, files
    can be manually transferred from any FTP client running Windows95.
    Senate Library (S-332)
        The primary support goal for the Senate Library was to upgrade and
    replace all existing hardware and software prior to the Library move in
    January 1999. In December 1998, staff replaced all Library Windows
    workstations with 25 Win95 PC's, added a NT4.0 Server, and implemented
    improved network printing for the Senate Library. Only eight of the 25
    personal computers required to be purchased new; the remainder were
    procured simply by cleaning house. During the period of May-August,
    approximately 21 Compaq Deskpro Workstations were refurbished, software
    reinstalled, and application software upgraded for the Library. This
    represent a cost savings of approximately $35,000. Datatrek replacement
    software was purchased to meet Y2K compliancy. Data conversions are
    expected to be completed in Q1/99.
    Printing and Document Services (SH-B04)
        In April 1998, SAA contracted Wang to install a new server for
    Printing and Document Services. Wang installed the NT server as a
    Secondary Domain Controller to the Secretary LAN and transported the
    hardware to Postal Square for further engineering. In July 1998, at the
    request of SAA, Info Systems reviewed the ongoing project to determine
    the exact levels of operating system software, and met with OPDS and
    SAA personnel to outline future support requirements. At that point it
    was determined to reinstall the NT system software, reload Microsoft
    SQL Server software, and establish a conduit in order to test links
    between Printing and Document Service and the developing engineers at
    Postal Square. Those items were accomplished in August 1998. At this
    point, project completion is estimated in Q2/Q3 1999 with the transfer
    of this server to Printing and Documents Services. There may be tethers
    to the existing LIS project, and those links will require further
    discovery.
        Presently, on-demand printing is accomplished utilizing a Xerox
    Docutech printing system. A duplicate system is installed at GPO. File
    transfers are shared between these two systems to send documents to
    OPDS. The existing operating system and installed hardware at OPDS is
    not Y2K compliant. GPO will replace non-compliant hardware and software
    for the Docutech in Q2/1999.
    Historical Office (SH-201)
        One significant addition to the Historical Office in 1998 was the
    added capability to edit changes made to the Bibliographic Directory of
    the United States Congress. This web site directory (http://
    bioguide.congress.gov) provides all bibliographic information from 1774
    to present. Senate historians now have the added features to edit and
    revise the database. Bibliographic information is available to all
    internal Senate web clients who require information on any specific
    Congressional member. The necessary SQL client software was installed
    and network protocols were establish to accomplish this task.
    Year 2000 Department Status
        One of the primary goals of the Information Systems Department
    within the Secretary Office is to insure Year 2000 readiness and
    compliance for all installed hardware and software systems.
        Beginning in May of 1998, in conjunction with the Sergeant of Arms
    Y2K Project Office, the Mitretek Group performed a detailed assessment
    of all computer related activity. This assessment did not include the
    ongoing LIS or FMIS project. Completed in December of 1998, this
    assessment provides detailed structure to those mission critical
    functions and vulnerabilities.
        During this same time frame, and in parallel with this assessment,
    all personal computers were either updated and/or replaced with
    compliant hardware. Most importantly the outdated network transfer
    method of moving legislation from the Capitol to the United States
    Government Printing Office was replaced. Legislation is now transferred
    electronically via a Y2K compliant gateway to GPO.
        At present Y2K compliance is mandatory for all new projects. The
    Legislative Information System (LIS), which is composed of the Document
    Management System, Amendment Tracking, and Committee Scheduling will
    replace the current LEGIS mainframe application in August of 1999. The
    Financial Information System (FMIS) application consists of two
    modules, FAMIS and ADPICS, are deemed compliant and in present use in
    Disbursing, SAA, and the Secretary's Office. Other major projects
    include the replacement hardware and software for the Office of
    Printing and Document Services, and the MAI mainframe replacement in
    Stationery/Gift Shop. OPDS is scheduled for completion in August 1999,
    and Stationery completion is targeted for April 1999.
        As of February 1999, over 450 systems within the Office of the
    Secretary have been inventoried and assessed for Year 2000 compliance.
    Software packages that require revision upgrades have been purchased to
    replace existing applications. Efforts are underway to test existing
    applications in March 1999. COTS software testing will include Corel
    Suite 8 applications, CC:MAIL, and FTP File transfers to GPO. Every
    system currently in production passes the YMark200 diagnostic test
    which establishes next century operation.
                    interparliamentary services--trips 1998
        January 5-11, 1998--Codel Lott: Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua,
    Guatemala, and Mexico (Senators Lott, Murkowski, Breaux, DeWine and
    Roberts).
        January 11-21, 1998--Codel Domenici: England, Germany, Switzerland
    and Brussels (Senators Domenici, Nickles, Abraham and Hagel).
        May 14-18, 1998--Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group: Nantucket,
    Massachusetts. Chairman: Senator Murkowski. Vice Chairman: Senator
    Murray. (Senators Murkowski and Grassley).
        May 22-27, 1998--North Atlantic Assembly: Spring Meeting.
    Barcelona, Spain. Chairman: Senator Roth. Vice Chairman: Senator Biden.
    (Senators Roth and Hutchinson).
        May 23-31, 1998--Codel Nickles/Lieberman: Israel, Cyprus and
    Bosnia-Herzegovina. (Senators Nickles, Lieberman and Reed).
        June 19-21, 1998--Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group: Morelia,
    Mexico. Chairman: Senator Roberts.\1\ Vice Chairman: Senator Dodd.
    (Senators Roberts and Sessions).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Named Chairman for Morelia conference only. Senator Hutchison
    unable to attend.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        June 27-July 5, 1998--Codel Domenici: France and Russia. (Senators
    Domenici, Thompson and Grams).
        November 2-13, 1998--U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change:
    Buenos Aries, Argentina. Chairman: Senator Hagel. (Senators Hagel,
    Kerrey and Enzi).
        November 9-20, 1998--North Atlantic Assembly: Fall Meeting.
    Scotland, Poland, Lithuania and Denmark. Chairman: Senator Roth. Vice
    Chairman: Senator Bumpers. (Senators Roth, Bumpers, Hatch, Warner,
    Grassley, Mikulski, Akaka, Thompson, Hutchinson, Sessions, Gordon Smith
    and Enzi).
        December 10-12, 1998--Codel Domenici: Honduras and Nicaragua.
    (Senators Domenici and Frist).
          interparliamentary services--official foreign visitors--1998
        January 13--Dr. Ali Mohamed MATAR, Bahrain official (1).
        January 15--Mr. Banzragch ODONJIL, Mongolian official (1).
        January 21--H.E. Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel (10).
        January 30--Malawi Officials (2).
        February 4--Mr. Wei Jingsheng, Chinese dissident (5).
        February 5--Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United
    Kingdom (6).
        February 10--H.E. Jaroslav SEDIVY, Minister of Foreign Affairs,
    Czech Republic (7). H.E. Laszlo KOVACS, Minister of Foreign Affairs,
    Hungary. H.E. Bronislaw GEREMEK, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland.
    Mr. Karel Kovanda, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Czech Republic.
        March 2--Mr. Giuseppe Lumia, Member of Parliament, Italy (1).
        March 3--USIA Foreign Policy Group (23).
        March 4--Kouassi Gahoun HEBGOR, Member of Parliament, Toga (1).
        March 11--Japanese Parliament Staff Members (3).
        March 12--H.E. Chuan Leekpai, Prime Minister of Thailand (9).
        March 18--H.M. Hussein I, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
    (4).
        April 8--Yemen Parliamentarians (5).
        April 29--Bangladesh Parliamentarians (4).
        May 5--Mr. John Brogden, Member of Parliament, Australia (1).
        May 6--Russian Federation Council (8).
        May 7--Professor Romano Prodi, President of Italy (8).
        May 12--Ukrainian Official (1).
        May 14--H.E. Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel (10).
        June 1--Hungarian Officials (4).
        June 3--Chinese Legislators (8).
        June 4--Bosnian Parliament Staff (4).
        June 24--European Parliament (12).
        June 25--Yugoslav Member of Parliament (1).
        July 9--Croatian Political Leaders (6).
        July 9--H.E. Jerzy Buzek, Prime Minister of Poland (6).
        July 14--Kazakhstan Parliamentarians (4).
        July 17--Moldovan Parliamentarians (4).
        July 31--Multi-Regional Group (18).
        September 17--H.E. Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic
    (7).
        September 15, 18--Mr. Neil Bessell, Member of Parliament, Australia
    (1).
        September 17--Members of Israeli Knesset (4).
        September 22--Korean Government Officials (15).
        September 25--His Royal Highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-
    Saud, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia (12).
        October 7--Mr. Suen-ming Chiang, Ministry of Justice, Taiwan (1).
        November 4--H.E. Dr. Janez Drnovsek, Prime Minister of Slovenia
    (7).
        November 9--Guyana Member of Parliament (1).
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Timothy S. Wineman
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present to your
    Committee, the Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2000.
        Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2000 budget estimates for the Senate
    have been included in the Budget of the United States Government for
    Fiscal Year 2000. This Budget has been developed in accordance with
    requests and proposals submitted by the various offices and functions
    of the Senate. The total budget estimates for the Senate are
    $565,567,000, which reflect an increase of $50,876,000, or 9.88 percent
    over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and does not reflect
    any adjustments to these estimates which may be presented to your
    Committee during these hearings. The total appropriations for the
    Senate for fiscal year 1999 are $514,691,000. An individual analysis of
    the budget estimates for all functions and offices has been included in
    the Senate Budget Book, previously provided to your Committee.
        The budget estimates for fiscal year 2000 are divided into three
    major categories as follows:

    Senate Items............................................     $97,540,000
    Contingent Expense Items................................     420,053,000
    Joint Items of the Senate...............................      47,974,000

        Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the increase for fiscal year 2000 over
    the fiscal year 1999 enacted levels is a result of: (1) $21,601,500
    increase in administrative expenses and capital assets, primarily
    attributable to the request of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of
    the Senate; (2) $13,434,000 increase in the budget estimate for
    Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account to fully fund
    the allowances which are under-funded as a result of the consolidation
    of population categories, increases in the populations of various
    states, and the increase in the Legislative Assistance Allowance
    authorized in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993, and the
    $50,000 per Member increase in the Administrative and Clerical
    Assistance Allowance authorized by the Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Act, 1999; (3) $11,422,000 for the anticipated 3.9
    percent cost of living increase for fiscal year 2000, and the
    annualization costs of the fiscal year 1999 cost of living adjustment;
    (4) $2,805,500 for personnel adjustments other than the cost of living,
    attributable primarily to the budget request of the Sergeant at Arms
    and the budget request of the Capitol Police; (5) $1,895,000 increase
    in agency contributions applicable to the cost of living adjustments
    and other personnel increase requests; (6) $202,000 decrease in the
    request for the Joint Committee on Printing, for which no fiscal year
    2000 request for funding was submitted; (7) $80,000 decrease in
    requests for overtime.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit for the consideration of your Committee, the
    Budget of the United States Senate for fiscal year 2000.

                             Capitol visitor center

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I am going to ask you
    an unfair question, but it pops into my head listening to you.
    Do you have any idea when the visitors center might be
    completed?
        Mr. Sisco. That is a good question. I believe that the
    Architect has proposed, or is in the process of proposing to
    the House and Senate committees that he is currently reporting
    to, a schedule that would complete the visitor center by 2004.
        That would be his best case scenario, as I understand it,
    given no delays in the decisionmaking processes. I believe that
    to meet that goal he has requested a streamlined structure to
    get answers at the appropriate stages along the way of planning
    and designing and constructing it, so there will not be any
    undue delays.
        I believe he has testified before the House Appropriations
    Committee that if that is not done it could be as late as 2008,
    or 2009, for the visitor center to be completed.
        Senator Bennett. I would have to run for reelection to be
    around for that one. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Sisco. But I do think he can--if we all work together,
    if the plan that was anticipated in the 105th Congress is
    approved by the 106th, and if the Architect is given some
    streamlined decisionmaking apparatus, where he can move along
    in the decisionmaking process while at the same time the House
    and the Senate leadership and committees have oversight over
    how the project is going--then I think it can become a reality
    by 2004.

                          FMIS--Processing of vouchers

        Senator Bennett. Now, the Disbursing Office has done an
    outstanding job, in my opinion, in picking up the FMIS project
    and producing some new financial systems. This is a tremendous
    undertaking. You and your team deserve a great deal of credit
    for it.
        When you undertake a job of this magnitude you always run
    into some glitches, and the press has complained about slowness
    in paying vouchers. I want to give you the opportunity to
    respond to that and tell us where we are.
        Mr. Sisco. I will make just a brief comment, and then I
    would like Tim to address it also. There is no question that
    within the Office of the Secretary and the Disbursing Office we
    got behind in the payment of bills, especially during the
    latter part of the year when we were bringing on the new
    system.
        The people who were running the existing system were
    helping to design the future system and implement the future
    system, had the expertise to do that, and had to do that, so
    they were on overload and we did get behind, and we apologize
    to the individual offices where that occurred.
        To Tim and his team's credit, that was short-lived, and we
    are now paying our bills for the Senate Member offices and
    committees within 14 days.
        I would say this, in the spirit of making sure we all get
    bills paid on time, that we can pay them within 14 days from
    the time that they reach the Disbursing Office. We have sent
    out word to the individual offices and committees, so that
    there not be any undue delay from the time that the vendor
    sends them the bill, maybe at the State office, to the time
    that it makes it to the office up here, and then comes to the
    Disbursing Office. We have a small window of opportunity to pay
    those within, say, a 30-day cycle, so we do ask everyone's
    cooperation on that.
        Mr. Wineman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we did have some
    difficulties in the fall in implementing the new system. Not
    only was it a new system, warranted to be year 2000 compliant,
    and replacing a significant number of systems that were not,
    but we changed all of the accounting processes and
    classifications as we converted to the standard Government
    general ledger and the standard OMB classification expense
    categories, and moved from a cash-based accounting to an
    obligation and accrual basis.
        The training, the acceptance testing, and the tight
    schedule we were on were because we felt it extremely important
    to implement at the beginning of fiscal year 1999. We knew with
    the magnitude of implementing the new system and the other
    accounting changes that there would probably be some
    difficulties, and we wanted to address those now at the
    beginning of this fiscal year, as opposed to having them wait
    until fiscal year 2000 with a very small window.
        As a result, we did get behind. Every accounting
    transaction had to be rewritten, and with some of them there
    were difficulties that we had to work through. There were some
    significant system performance problems as we worked with the
    system longer and put more data into the system, and we did
    cause some hardship to Member staff and some vendors.
        I am pleased to say we have stabilized on the system
    performance side of the issues, and we have addressed most all
    the transaction-level accounting transactions that needed to be
    done in order for us to pay all the bills.
        As the Secretary has testified, we have been paying bills
    within 14 days of the date received in the Disbursing Office
    since the beginning of February, and the majority of those are
    even being done within 7 calendar days. This has had a positive
    ripple effect throughout the Senate offices. They are very much
    aware that their bills are getting paid in a much more timely
    fashion, and I think that to the extent that they can they are
    trying to get them in to us maybe a little bit earlier than
    they might have in the past.
        Our peak performance in our previous system was probably 3
    to 4 weeks in paying bills, and not consistent. Now we are
    consistently paying the bills within the 14 days. That has been
    our mandate and our goal to do, so I am pleased to report that.

                         Office of the Secretary budget

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We appreciate the
    fact that you have only the COLA increase. Are you sure you can
    do the job with no additional funds?
        Mr. Sisco. Yes.
        Senator Bennett. I like that answer.
        Mr. Sisco. I will amplify on that if you would like. We are
    very, very comfortable that we can continue to provide services
    to the Senators and the staffs and compensate our employees
    fairly and on a merit basis for a job well done.
        Senator Bennett. Are FMIS and LIS both on budget and on
    time?
        Mr. Sisco. They both are. We have aggressive plans to
    complete them. We have about $3.4 million in unused funds that
    are available on LIS and about $1.6 million on FMIS, and so I
    am convinced, and all the people who advise me and who are
    doing this, both inside and the outside contractor, believe
    they can do it within budget, and I believe we are on time.
        We have done a tremendous amount of work in the last year,
    especially since last May or so, but throughout the 2 years
    that I have been here, I think the staff of the Secretary's
    Office, in particular the Disbursing Office with FMIS and the
    legislative staff with LIS, have done tremendous jobs with both
    of these systems that have to do with Y2K issues and the
    technology issues in the Senate.
        And I also compliment the Sergeant at Arms and the staff in
    that office for the cooperation that we are getting. We are
    really working in a partnership, and in teamwork to turn the
    lemon into lemonade by using Y2K to update from a technological
    standpoint all the systems in the Senate.
        But that is the long answer. The short answer is yes, I
    think we can do it not only from an operational standpoint, but
    also from a capital standpoint.

                         Additional committee question

        Senator Bennett. Very good. Thank you very much. We
    appreciate you being here, and we appreciate all that you do.
        Mr. Sisco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        [The following question was not asked at the hearing, but
    was submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                         Additional Committee Question

        Question. The Committee commends the Office of the
    Secretary of the Senate for saving $51,230 from the
    Congressional Printing and Binding fund by making available on
    line instead of printing bills ``received'' from the House. The
    conference report accompanying the Legislative Branch Fiscal
    Year 1999 Appropriations Act requested the Secretary of the
    Senate to work with the Clerk of the House and the Public
    Printer to evaluate ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of
    printing Congressional documents and to make appropriate
    recommendations. What is the status of that effort?
        Answer. The Office of the Secretary has worked closely with
    the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Public
    Printer to develop a Standard Generalized Markup Language
    (SGML) for the Senate and House of Representatives. SGML will
    transmit legislative documents to the Government Printing
    Office (GPO) in an electronic form ready for printing, with
    little need for manual processing. By replacing tasks that GPO
    must now perform manually, SGML will produce significant cost
    savings in congressional printing.
        The most recent report of the status of SGML within
    Congress is found in ``Document Management System Status Report
    and Plan,'' a report submitted on March 15, 1999, by the Clerk
    to the Committee on House Administration. Pursuant to the
    directive of the fiscal year 1999 Legislative Branch conferees,
    the Office of the Secretary assisted the Clerk in gathering
    information needed to prepare this report.
        In brief, SGML is a proven technology, first developed in
    the 1980's and in widespread use in government and industry
    since the early 1990's. By use of a series of electronic codes,
    SGML takes raw text--such as the text of a bill or a committee
    report--and electronically formats that text for further use,
    whether amending, publishing, distributing, or archiving.
    Almost all manual functions are eliminated.
        The SGML Coordinating Committee, which sets overall policy
    direction, consists of staff from the Offices of the Secretary
    and Clerk and the Senate Rules and Administration and House
    Administration Committees. Until the end of 1998, it was led by
    staff of the Joint Committee on Printing. The SGML Technical
    Committee reports to the Coordinating Committee and focuses on
    the technical efforts. The Technical Committee includes staff
    from the Secretary, Clerk, and GPO, as well as technical staff
    from the Senate Computer Center and their House counterparts,
    and staff of other agencies including the Library of Congress
    and the National Archives. The Office of the Secretary is
    currently recruiting an SGML professional to serve on both the
    Coordinating and Technical Committees and otherwise give
    professional direction to the SGML effort in the Senate.
        At this time, the Technical Committee is at work on
    Document Type Definitions (DTD) which are foundational to
    applying SGML to bills, resolutions, and amendments. However,
    as the first production-level SGML project, the Senate and
    House jointly have issued the Biographical Directory of the
    United States Congress: 1774 to Present. This effort, now
    available at http://bioguide.congress.gov, was selected for a
    ``trial run'' because the information is structured but not
    overly complex, and because it is highly useful to members,
    staff, and the public. GPO used this SGML product to develop
    the capability to produce a typeset version of the Biographical
    Directory, and the approach taken by GPO here will enable
    typesetting of future SGML documents.
        Within the Senate, the Legislative Information System (LIS)
    is reducing and will continue to reduce printing costs. As
    Senators and staff gain greater familiarity with the
    capabilities of LIS to access and print the text of bills and
    other legislative materials from their desktop computers,
    demand for the GPO-printed versions of the materials declines.
    On-line availability of bills and reports, together with
    Docutech, which is a highly cost-effective means for the
    Document Room to print additional copies of bills and reports
    without reordering from GPO, has allowed the Office of the
    Secretary to reduce Senate printing orders significantly.
    Increasingly in the future, LIS will serve to control Senate
    printing costs through better management of printing orders,
    and reduced associated costs such as storage and distribution.
                 Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND
                DOORKEEPER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            LORETTA SYMMS, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS
            DOYLE G. FREDERICK, CHIEF OF STAFF
            CHARLES CICCOLELLA, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS
            CHRISTOPHER C. DEY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                              Biographical sketch

        Senator Bennett. Thank you. Our next witness is Hon. Jim
    Ziglar, Senate Sergeant at Arms. We recognize and welcome the
    Hon. James Ziglar, accompanied by Loretta Symms, who is well-
    known to the committee.
        This is your first appearance officially as the Sergeant at
    Arms before the committee, and we are delighted to have you
    here. We hear good things coming out of your office, and for
    the record, your biography will be placed in the committee
    record so that we have it as a part of the institutional memory
    of the committee.
        [The information follows:]

                     Biographical Sketch of James W. Ziglar

        James W. Ziglar was elected the 35th Sergeant at Arms and
    Doorkeeper of the Senate on October 15, 1998. He serves as
    chief protocol officer and law enforcement officer of the
    United States Senate, and as principal administrative officer
    for most support services provided to Senators and their
    staffs.
        Prior to his election, Mr. Ziglar was a Managing Director
    of PaineWebber Incorporated in the firm's Municipal Securities
    Group. He was a member of the PaineWebber Operating Committee,
    the Municipal Securities Group Executive Committee and served
    as Chairman of the Municipal Securities Group Operating
    Committee. Mr. Ziglar had management responsibility for the
    National Infrastructure Finance Group and the West Coast
    General Markets Group.
        Mr. Ziglar has a total of 23 years of experience in the
    public finance industry as an investment banker and lawyer. In
    addition to his experience in the private sector, Mr. Ziglar
    has worked in various capacities in the federal government. He
    served as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and
    Science (1987-1988), in which capacity he directed the
    operations of the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological
    Survey, and the Bureau of Mines. Earlier, Mr. Ziglar served
    variously as an aide to United States Senator James O. Eastland
    (1964-1971), as a legislative and public affairs officer at the
    U.S. Department of Justice (1971-1972), and as a Law Clerk to
    U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun (1972
    Term).
        Mr. Ziglar began his career as a lawyer in 1973 and joined
    the investment banking industry in 1980. During his career, Mr.
    Ziglar has worked as an associate at the New York law firm of
    Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon (1973-1977), a partner at
    the Phoenix law firm of O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover,
    Killingsworth & Beshears (1977-1980), a Senior Vice President
    of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. (1980-1984), a Managing Director of
    PaineWebber Incorporated (1984-1987, 1990-1998), and a Managing
    Director of Drexel Burnham Lambert Incorporated (1989).
        Mr. Ziglar received his Bachelor of Arts and his Juris
    Doctor degrees from George Washington University. He has served
    as a member of the Board of Directors of the American Water
    Foundation, the American Energy Assurance Council, the National
    Water Resources Association, the International Small Satellite
    Organization, Mercy International Health Services, InterHealth
    Incorporated, the Landon School, and the Harry A. Blackmun
    Scholarship Foundation. In the early 1990's, Mr. Ziglar served
    as a member of the Senior Advisory Group on Water Governance of
    the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations.
    Recently, Mr. Ziglar served as Chairman of the United States
    Senate Delegation to the National Summit on Retirement Savings.
    In 1988, he was the joint recipient with U.S. Senator Malcolm
    Wallop of the Water Statesman of the Year Award from the
    National Water Resources Association.
        Mr. Ziglar is a native of Pascagoula, Mississippi, and is a
    member of the bars of New York, Washington, D.C., Virginia and
    Arizona.

        Senator Bennett. The Sergeant at Arms budget request is
    $116 million, which is a 23-percent increase over fiscal year
    1999 and includes a request for 15 additional FTE's, so we look
    forward to hearing your explanation for that and justification,
    and you may proceed.

                               Summary statement

        Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
    here in my role as Sergeant at Arms. I did have the pleasure of
    coming here as chairman of the Capitol Police Board earlier
    this month, and we appreciate your support.
        I wanted to also introduce, in addition to Loretta, three
    other people who are in the audience, Doyle Frederick, the
    chief of staff, Chris Dey, our chief financial officer, and
    Chick Ciccolella, the chief of operations who on a day-to-day
    basis makes things work.
        I have submitted my testimony for the record, but I would
    like to briefly expand and discuss some of the issues that you
    have just raised.
        First, I would like to do one thing, and that is
    acknowledge and recognize the tremendous contribution that my
    predecessor, Greg Casey, made to modernizing the Sergeant at
    Arms organizational and financial structure. He did a terrific
    job and I think he deserves a lot of gratitude for that. I must
    say he certainly made my job a lot easier. We are down the path
    on many issues that I would have had to start had he not, and
    so I just wanted to put on the record my appreciation for what
    Greg did in this job.
        Second, I want to note in the relatively brief period of
    time that I have had to observe the Sergeant at Arms
    organization, I am convinced it is a first-class professional
    organization, and I am quite proud to be part of that
    organization.
        Now, that is not to suggest that everything is perfect and
    that we do not have challenges going forward into the future.
    We do, and I have tried to define for my own agenda as Sergeant
    at Arms what those challenges are and what I would like to
    address going forward, and it really breaks down into four
    different areas.
        The first area is obviously Y2K, and that is not just
    because you happen to have a particular interest in it, but
    because I share your view that it would not look good if the
    United States Senate found itself crashed on January 1, 2000,
    when we have been preaching to the rest of the world about
    getting its act together, so it clearly is critically
    important, and the number 1 priority.
        The second priority is, I believe we need to develop and
    execute a policy and a methodology for keeping the Senate as
    up-to-date on the cutting edge of technology, and this includes
    everything from the paging system to the E-mail system to the
    document management system. We simply need to keep pace with
    the changing technological environment.
        The third challenge is to do a better job of delivering the
    services that we are supposed to deliver. I think the Sergeant
    at Arms Office does a great job of it now, but there is always
    room for improvement, whether it is the technology side, or
    whether it is delivering the mail. We need to continually work
    at improving the efficiency of the delivery of our services.
        Finally are the matters we talked about earlier in my
    appearance as Capitol Police Board chairman, and those are to
    enhance the security of the Capitol, and to deal with important
    management issues in the Capitol Police Department.
        In fact, tomorrow I will be going over to the House
    Oversight--I think it is called the House Administration
    Committee now, to testify on the Booz-Allen and Hamilton report
    that we just received. In fact, when I was here before I talked
    about our response to that report and how the input from Booz-
    Allen can help define the things we can do to make the Capitol
    Police Department a better police department.
        I think I speak for the entire Sergeant at Arms
    organization when I say we are committed to making this work,
    and meeting these challenges as rapidly and as efficiently as
    we possibly can.
        I would like to--if you are agreeable to this, I would like
    to go ahead and discuss the overall fiscal year 2000 budget
    request, and then come back to Y2K at the very end.
        The budget request, as you pointed out, is $116 million,
    which is up $22 million from fiscal year 1999, and that is due
    in large part as a result of major capital items.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                           FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--               Fiscal year 2000
                                                         ----------------------------------------   vs. fiscal year
                         Description                                                                     1999
                                                            1997      1998      1999      2000   -------------------
                                                           actuals   actuals   budget    budget    Amount    Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operating and maintenance expenditures..............   $83,628   $85,923   $90,654   $94,798    $4,144       4.6
    Capital and related expenditures....................    14,048    10,400     3,662    21,337    17,675     482.7
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
          Total.........................................    97,676    96,323    94,316   116,135    21,819      23.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        I want to look at this budget, or I have tried to look at
    this budget somewhat differently, I guess, than it has been in
    the past, and put it into two components. Because of my
    business background I want to look at the O&M budget, or if you
    will, the operating budget, and then the capital budget to see
    how we are performing and where we are putting our money. Can
    we bring that chart a little closer?
        Senator Bennett. I have a copy.
        Mr. Ziglar. What we have done is, we have gone back to 1997
    and broken it into an operation and maintenance expenditures
    portion and then a capital and related expenditures portion.
    What you will see is that the capital expenditures portion up
    until, obviously, this request, has been going down rather
    dramatically.
        At the same time, our operating budget has been going up,
    but it has been going up primarily due to COLA's and merit
    increases without a lot of other additional costs.
        This year, in terms of the operating and maintenance
    budget, we are asking for a 4.6 percent increase, and let me
    tell you a little bit about what is in that; 3.4 percent of the
    4.6 percent is attributable to COLA's and merit increases, and
    part of the additional 15 people, but not the entire part.
        The other part of that 4.6--1.2 percent--is attributable to
    the commercial information services expansion and upgrade. It
    was a question in my mind as to where we wanted to put that,
    but we have treated the commercial information services project
    development as an operating expense in the past, so to remain
    consistent we put $1.1 million into the operating budget for
    the upgrade of the commercial information services.
        Let me make one other point about the operating side of the
    budget, and that is historically we have not put things like
    PC's, smaller equipment into the capital budget. They have been
    in the operating budget. If we spent $10 million, let us say,
    on PC's in a year, that would show up in the operating budget.
    So there are capital items of short-term duration, rapidly
    depreciating items that are part of the operating budget, which
    would be somewhat differently treated if you were in a business
    environment. That would have something, I am sure, to do with
    the tax implications.
        With respect to the capital component, as you will see, it
    had dropped off through 1999, but we are now proposing an
    increase of $17,675,000 in capital in order to make some big
    expenditures that we need to make on the technology side, and I
    will get into that in a few minutes.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA24.001

        Let me make one other point about the budget generally. We
    have another chart here that I would like to show you, because
    I think it tells a very good story about how the Sergeant at
    Arms Office has been functioning. I wish that I could sit here
    and take credit for it, but I cannot, because I have not been
    here long enough to take credit, so I will give credit
    particularly to my predecessor.
        As you will see, the spread between revenues or
    appropriations and expenditures has been rather wide in the
    past. However, in the last few years we have gotten to the
    point where our expenditures have been approximately 98 percent
    of the appropriation. So what that tells me, is that a couple
    of things have happened.
        One, we are getting better at budgeting, and second we are
    also getting better at managing our revenues versus expenses at
    the operating level. And more importantly, what I have
    discovered is that productivity obviously has gone up in the
    Sergeant at Arms operations, because we are doing a lot more
    things with the same basic level of revenue as we have had in
    the past. Quite frankly, going into year 2000, fiscal year
    2000, what I see are a number of projects at the operating
    level, service upgrades and things like that, that we are going
    to be able to do and still maintain basically that same revenue
    line.
        So I am very pleased that we are doing so well in terms of
    running this operation. I think a lot of that credit goes to
    Chick, who has done a wonderful job since he came in as the
    operating head, and so I am encouraged about this organization
    and about its efficiency.
        Going back to the capital component of the budget, as I
    mentioned, this $17 million increase intended to provide
    upgrades to the technology infrastructure in the Senate, and it
    is driven somewhat by the year 2000 issue.
        This budget, the capital budget, helps and supports the
    information technology strategic plan that was put together in
    1997 and was started, the implementation was started in 1998,
    so this is part of trying to address the strategic plan and
    live up to it.
        Even though it is in my written text, let me run through
    for you the components of the additional $21 million that are
    over and above last year's request. $7\1/2\ million can be
    attributable directly to Y2K. Now, $3\1/2\ million of it, or
    $4\1/2\, I guess, would be specifically addressed to the non-
    mission critical part of the Y2K effort, and I will show you
    where we are on that in a few minutes. That is money that will
    be spent in the latter part of the year to try to get all of
    our non-mission critical systems compliant.
        There is another $3 million there that, quite frankly, is a
    contingency, and that contingency is dedicated to the mission-
    critical systems. Hopefully, we have planned it exactly right,
    and we know exactly how many dollars it is going to cost, but
    you never know when you are going to hit something that is
    going to cost you more money, and so we wanted to put a
    contingency in there.
        Chick promises me we will never have to go into the
    contingency, but I am going to ask him to come up with half of
    it if we do, but we do have a contingency there just in case on
    the mission critical systems, and hopefully we will be giving
    you that money back after we go through this process
        $3\1/2\ million is used for upgrading the data
    communications systems, or the wide area network upgrade, and
    that is a project started in 1997. It is a 5-year project, and
    it has to do with communications between member offices, both
    at the State and Washington, and committees, and it is a very
    large project but one that is moving on quite nicely.
        We then have $4.4 million for the recording studio, and
    that is broken into two components. $2.3 million of it is being
    used on the first phase of creating digital technology in the
    recording studio. Now, we need to do that for several reasons.
        Number 1, the FCC has dictated that by the year 2005 or
    2006 all broadcast will be in digital format, and so if we are
    going to continue to broadcast over C-SPAN the proceedings of
    the Senate and the committees, we are going to need to be in
    digital format, so we are going to need to start that
    migration.
        Maybe even more importantly what we have here is an
    opportunity also to be more efficient in the way that we
    archive the proceedings of the Senate. We can actually send
    this in digital format over to the Library of Congress, and to
    the Archives, and they can record it on their disks, and we
    never have to make the tapes and send them over there and store
    them.
        And the third implication for digital technology is that,
    for example, if you have a committee hearing and you want to,
    in real time, broadcast a piece of that, or use a piece of
    that, a staffer at a desk could pull that off, edit it, and
    have it rebroadcast in real time. It is an amazing technology,
    and it is something we are really being forced to go to, but it
    is something that also will increase the operational efficiency
    of the Senate.
        Just to let you know the magnitude of this project, over a
    number of years it will be, we estimate, about $30 million to
    go completely to digital, and that includes lots of peripheral
    things, not just the machines and that sort of thing.
        The second part of that $4.4 million is $2.1 million for
    robotic cameras in committee rooms. As you know, four of our
    committees already have robotic cameras that are operated from
    a central console over in the recording studio, and they are
    very unobtrusive. They are also much better for security
    purposes.
        We now have seven committees that have taken a liking to
    this, and have requested robotics, so we have put into the
    budget for this year $2.1 million that will be used to equip
    four of the committees and it is not that we are trying to
    discriminate. That is about the limit of what we can get done
    in the fiscal year, because it is not just putting the camera
    up in the corner. It is actually creating a console room or a
    console area so that it can be controlled from there.
        Those decisions are going to be made in consultation with
    you folks and with Rules. We are proposing that the committees
    with the greatest demand for the service have priority, but
    that is certainly up to you and the Rules Committee. We will do
    what you think is best.
        We also, as I mentioned, have $1.1 million for the
    commercial information service upgrade. I have addressed that.
        Another item that I do not think you would find anybody in
    the Senate that would disagree with, and that is, we have $1
    million in here for a new E-mail system. In the 4 months I have
    been around, the E-mail system has been an interesting
    challenge at times. What we are facing here is that cc:Mail,
    which is produced by Lotus, is no longer going to be supported,
    and it is no longer going to be upgraded, and so basically they
    are abandoning cc:Mail, and consequently we are going to have
    to abandon cc:Mail. So we are in the process of coming up with
    a new system that will be more efficient for the Senate.
        We also have in here $1.9 million for training, for human
    resources upgrade, and for contract management. Contract
    management is of particular interest to me, Senator, having
    come from a place where we did do a lot of out-sourcing, if you
    will. I think the Senate does not do as good a job as it should
    in overseeing the many vendors that we have here in everything
    from negotiating the contracts to managing the contracts to
    overseeing, making sure that we get deliverables from those
    contracts, and the quality that we need. I have been looking
    into that, and we want to upgrade the contract management side
    of the business. That is where some of these personnel are
    involved.
        And then finally we have $2.4 million for COLA's and merit
    increases, as I mentioned earlier.
        We recognize that this is a sizeable increase in our
    budget, but I think that you can see that these expenditures
    will, when they are made, and these systems are put into
    effect, increase the operational capabilities of the Senate. We
    sure hope you will support this budget request.
        I would like to turn to Y2K, and I know you have been
    waiting for me to get there. Let me give you my personal
    overview. I am highly confident, not just confident, I am
    highly confident that the Senate's mission-critical systems are
    going to be fully capable of dealing with the Y2K problem when
    we hit January 1, 2000, that we are going to be in good shape.
        When I first got here I got involved in looking at our
    process and where we were and that sort of thing. I had to put
    that aside in terms of the intensity of interest during the
    impeachment trial. But as soon as it was over, I got back into
    it, and I can assure you, that progress continued during the
    impeachment trial. Our folks were doing their jobs very well.
        But I got back into it as soon as impeachment was over at a
    personal level and even went to the point of personally having
    our process validated, and I will explain that to you sometime
    if you are interested. I feel very comfortable we are doing the
    right things to get there.
        Our effort, as you know, started in 1996, but we really did
    not get started in an organized way until 1998, when the
    Project Office was put together.
        Probably the two most important things that we did, it
    would appear to me: one was to bring GAO in and to adopt their
    five-phased approach to it--awareness, assessment, renovation,
    validation, and implementation--and we have been following that
    format very carefully, and GAO has been a partner in this. They
    are looking at what we are doing.
        I actually had them come in and talk to me independent of
    the folks in Postal Square, just making sure that I was
    comfortable that we were doing the right things, and that they
    were comfortable.
        The other thing that we have done that I think is very
    important is that we have hired Mitretek to be a partner to
    help us manage this process. I am--and you will find, Senator,
    I am a skeptic somewhat of outside consultants. I have never
    felt like you consistently get your money's worth from outside
    consultants, and so I will always be a little bit skeptical,
    but this is one where I feel very good about the value-added of
    having Mitretek here and am very confident that their presence
    is a very big plus for us.
        The whole Y2K thing I think has been a blessing in disguise
    for the Senate for the simple reason that it forced or allowed
    the Senate to modernize its technological infrastructure, and I
    think it has forced us to do it in a lot of ways.
        Our approach has been not dissimilar to the approach that a
    lot of Government agencies and other institutions have taken in
    terms of how we approach this issue, and that is to define the
    mission-critical systems and the non-mission-critical systems.
    With respect to the Senate, we had a three-pronged criteria
    based upon the business functions of the Senate.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA24.002

        One was legislation; it is obviously the business we are
    in. We are in the business of constituent service, and we are
    required to provide financial management in order to make the
    system work. So we use that criteria to define what was
    mission-critical. Initially we came up with 19 mission-critical
    systems, and since I have gotten here, we have gone through the
    process and have added three more systems that I think probably
    needed to be on the list. We now have 22 mission critical
    systems.
        We have non-mission critical systems that we have defined,
    and there are 43 of those, and those 43 were based upon whether
    or not the Senate could continue to function if those systems
    did not function. Now, we might not function well, and it might
    not be real pleasant to function without some of this stuff if
    we went back to hand ledgers, but the fact is, the Senate could
    continue to function, and so we used that as the criteria, and
    there are 43 of those.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA24.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T08MA24.004

        Without going into all of the details of it, if you will
    look at that--and I think you have it in front of you,
    Senator--we are doing quite well on the non-mission-critical
    systems.
        In fact, while I guess there is no guarantee of this, I am
    pretty confident that come January 1, 2000, that even our non-
    mission-critical systems are all going to be Y2K-compliant.
    Obviously, our emphasis is on mission-critical, but we are
    doing a lot of work and we are getting there very quickly on
    the non-mission-critical systems.
        With respect to the mission-critical systems, of the 22
    there are 8 now that are either fully tested, validated, ready
    to go, or very near that. Of the remaining 14, you have the
    chart in front of you, and as you can see, we are doing quite
    well. We have our deadlines and I think it is realistic that we
    will meet them and be there well before January 1.
        I wanted to mention a couple of the systems that are there
    because they are of special interest. I will not talk much
    about legislative information and financial management, because
    you have just spent a lot of time with Gary on those.
        We are very comfortable with the legislative information
    system status at the moment. We manage it jointly with the
    Secretary, as you know, and our side of this is the
    technological side of it. The amendment tracking system is up
    and running, the committee scheduling system is up and running,
    and the document management system is getting near to being up
    and running.
        Now, we are in the functional testing stage of the
    amendment tracking, and the committee scheduling system, and we
    will, when we hit the functional testing point on the document
    management system, then start moving into the end-to-end
    testing for Y2K of those systems. We are very comfortable that
    we are coming along very nicely on that.
        The financial management information system has already
    been implemented and, as you know, is in the testing phase now.
        The mainframe which is in front of you there, actually we
    are further along on the mainframe than the chart represents,
    because what happened was the delivery of the new computer was
    much quicker than we thought. It is actually here, it is
    actually installed, and we are actually in the functional
    testing phase, and we will be moving to the Y2K testing phase
    very shortly. I am very pleased about that, because that has
    lots of cascading effects on other things we do around here, so
    we are quite comfortable with where we are on the mainframe.
        Another thing I wanted to mention is the Capitol Police
    radio. I talked to you about that when I was here before as to
    whether or not we were going to try to do a Y2K fix on that
    console or whether we would go for a new one. After a lot of
    analysis, both financial and operational, we have decided that
    the appropriate response here is to go for a new radio console
    for a number of reasons: it was going to be a reasonably
    expensive fix; this console is way outmoded, not being produced
    any more, and has a limited time left on when we can get
    support for it; and maybe more important, it has no redundancy
    in the system, so if it goes down, it is down.
        There are lots of new modular type radio console systems
    that are out there now, and so we are in the process of putting
    together a bid package to find out which one we want to buy and
    which is the most efficient to use.
        The Senate paging system is something that I put down here.
    Maybe in the big scheme of things it may not be all that
    interesting to anybody, but I find it interesting that we have
    a paging system around here that does not work beyond 30 miles
    from here, and considering the fact that you can take a pager
    and go anywhere in the world now and receive a message, it
    seems to me that we are way behind the technological curve
    there.
        We are in a bit of a dilemma. We have to make sure that we
    are Y2K-compliant on the current system, but we want to move to
    a new system, and so we are trying to fix the Y2K problem
    because we cannot get completely to a new system by January 1,
    2000, but in doing that we are strategizing our movement to a
    new pager system, and I think that is really important. I mean,
    it is great to be able to get a page in the Capitol Building,
    but if you cannot get a page in Utah or Mississippi, what good
    is it, and so we are really going to----
        Senator Bennett. I like it. [Laughter.]
        If I get more than 30 miles away from here, they leave me
    alone. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Ziglar. Well, in that case, Senator, we are not going
    to give you a pager. [Laughter.]
        Let me conclude about Y2K by saying it is probably
    unrealistic to expect all of our systems to work, particularly
    the non-mission-critical systems, but I have to tell you that I
    do expect them to work come January 1, 2000, and I think we are
    going to get there. Hopefully, my optimism will be rewarded,
    but I do think we will get there. We obviously are focusing on
    mission-critical systems. We have to, and they will be there,
    and we are confident we are going to be able to conduct
    business on January 1, 2000.
        I would like to end my comments by making the point that
    the fiscal year 2000 budget request in my view is an investment
    in the future. The Senate is going to be well-served by
    improving its systems and managing the new technologies of the
    21st Century, rather than being a victim of those technologies,
    or being at their mercy.

                               prepared statement

        At the Sergeant at Arms Office it is our goal to provide
    the best service and the best technology available for the
    system while protecting the hard-earned dollars of our
    taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity, and I
    am anxious to answer your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of James W. Ziglar
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2000
    funding request for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper.
    I am accompanied by: Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms; Doyle G.
    Frederick, Chief of Staff; Charles ``Chick'' Ciccolella, Chief of
    Operations; and Christopher C. Dey, Chief Financial Officer.
        Before I begin my testimony today, I want to publicly thank my
    predecessor, Greg Casey, for a job well-done. During his two-year
    tenure, Greg engineered and executed a successful overhaul of the
    administrative and operating structure of the Sergeant at Arms
    organization. It was an overhaul that was much-needed and the Senate,
    in my opinion, owes him a debt of gratitude. He certainly made my job
    easier.
        Since assuming the duties of Sergeant at Arms in November 1998, I
    have been on a steep learning curve. The impeachment trial provided me
    with an opportunity to witness how the Sergeant at Arms organization
    functions under the most trying of circumstances. What I learned from
    this experience is that the Senate is blessed to have so many
    experienced, loyal, competent and professional employees. The Sergeant
    at Arms operation is a first-class professional organization.
        Although there are many significant challenges facing us in such
    areas as delivery of services, technology upgrades, the potential Y2K
    problem, enhancing Capitol Complex security and strengthening the
    management structure of the Police Department, much progress has been
    made in addressing those challenges.
        My predecessor testified before this Committee on March 12, 1998
    with respect to the fiscal year 1999 budget and the initiatives he was
    then undertaking. Much has occurred since that testimony. Among others:
    there are eight new members of the Senate; we experienced the tragic
    loss of two Police officers; we have replaced or made Y2K compliant
    over 3,000 personal computers; we have upgraded nine major systems
    (Amendment Tracking System, Committee Scheduling System, Republican
    Vote Tally System, Senate Payroll System, Telecommunication Switches,
    Local Telephone Service, Frame Relay Data Network System, Senate Fiber
    Network, and the Senate's Secure Telephones) to enable Y2K compliancy
    (some are still being tested and validated); we have brought online the
    new FMIS system; we have substantially completed the reorganization
    initiated by Mr. Casey; and, of course, we provided support for the
    historic impeachment trial.
        As we go forward, we are focused on the major technology concerns
    of the Senate: the Y2K problem, about which much more will be provided
    shortly; e-mail capability; member office mail systems; and continuing
    development of the Legislative Information System, including the
    Document Management component of LIS, and the Financial Management
    Information System. Also, as you know, we have begun a program to
    replace and make entirely Y2K compliant all the personal computers of
    members of the class of 2001, leadership offices and committees. We
    will provide regular reports to the Committee on the progress of that
    program and related funding requirements.
        On a matter that I know to be of interest to members and staff of
    the Committee, I am pleased to report that the legislation implementing
    the new hair care revolving fund and the requirement that we move to
    significantly reduce operating losses has experienced some success. In
    1997, the operating loss was $350,000; in 1998, the loss was $275,000;
    and in 1999, we project the loss to be in the $150,000 to $200,000
    range. We have put in place significant price increases and have
    adopted a commission-based compensation plan and reduced staffing
    levels. However, we face additional challenges with respect to this
    issue because of the difficulty in reducing the loss further without
    significantly reducing the level of compensation and benefits of the
    employees of the facility. As you know, we worked with the Rules
    Committee to develop a plan that would allow the employees to remain
    eligible for their federal benefits and to retain as much of their
    compensation as possible. While that has been achieved, profitability
    has not. Additionally, we recognize that there remain continuing
    concerns about the appropriate level of salary compensation of the
    staff in the Hair Care facility. We will continue to work with this
    Committee and with the Rules Committee to resolve this matter.
        Our commitment to satisfy the many service needs of the Senate is
    based upon the premise of constant and effective communication with
    those who rely on us for a panoply of services. As you know, we
    established the Office of Customer Relations last year to ensure that
    our Senate customers participate with us as partners in satisfying
    their technology and other service requirements. The Office of Customer
    Relations now is fully staffed and functioning and has been one of the
    real success stories of the reorganization implemented by my
    predecessor.
        As mentioned above, the reorganization of our operations largely
    has been completed. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of
    the new organizational structure and changes will be made as necessary
    to better deliver services to our Senate customers. I want to assure
    you that we remain committed to the goal of providing the highest
    quality of service to the Senate consistent with protecting the hard-
    earned dollars of the American taxpayer.
                        fiscal year 2000 budget request
        Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to devote a substantial portion of
    my testimony to Y2K and related technology issues and initiatives.
    However, I would first like to provide you with an explanation of our
    funding request and conclude my testimony with an extended discussion,
    as outlined above. This request addresses important near term issues
    and funds needed for future technology investments.
        Our Budget Request for fiscal year 2000 is $116 million, which is
    an increase of approximately $22 million from the current fiscal year.
    To put this budget request in some perspective, it is helpful to
    analyze it in two parts. The first part would be categorized as the SAA
    baseline operating budget, i.e., how does this budget compare with
    prior year budgets after excluding major capital items or one-time
    projects or expenditures? The second part would encompass those items
    that reflect non-recurring major capital and related expenditures.
        It should be noted that in three of the four preceding years, our
    appropriation has been less than in the preceding year. In fact, since
    1991, our budget has remained flat or has decreased in all but one
    year. The last appropriation of this size was in 1992 when the budget
    was $120 million.
        In the most recent two fiscal years, our obligations and
    expenditures exceeded 98 percent of our appropriation. We are consuming
    nearly all of our annual funding and are maintaining a larger and more
    complex array of services, interconnecting systems and technologies.
    What this indicates to me is that we are doing a better job of
    budgeting and that we are increasing productivity--we are doing more
    with the same level of resources. To illustrate my point, although our
    aggregate operating and maintenance budget request has been increased
    by 4.6 percent or $4 million over fiscal year 1999, that increase is
    reflected primarily in adjustments for COLA's and merit increases. Yet,
    if you examine the increased work load of fiscal year 1999 over fiscal
    year 1998 and you factor in our expectations that the workload will
    increase yet again as much in fiscal year 2000, the productivity gains
    are substantial. To give you an example of increased workloads, we have
    documented the following: through use of robotic cameras in committee
    hearing rooms, we have covered 12 percent more hearings; we also
    processed 30 percent more mail with fewer staff; introduced video
    streaming services over the wide area network to state offices; and
    expanded our commercial information service program.
        The second part of our fiscal year 2000 Budget Request could be
    characterized as the capital budget component. The current level of
    funding for the Sergeant at Arms operation does not provide for the
    significant capital investments required for the future. We are
    requesting an increase of $18 million for capital investments, to take
    a necessary and substantial step toward building the kind of technology
    infrastructure necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
    This requested increase is driven by the expected costs of completing
    our Y2K compliance project and by the need to fund improved and
    expanded technologies in support of member offices and committees.
        To successfully meet future needs, we must think in terms of multi-
    year time horizons from concept to full-scale implementation. This
    budget request recognizes both the increased demand for technological
    solutions to Senate office work problems and the requirement to plan in
    advance for the integration of new technology. We must begin the
    funding and development process now in order to insure that Senate
    needs in 2001, 2002 and beyond are met.
        This budget request fully supports the elements of the Information
    Technology Strategic Plan. The objectives of the plan are: Provide
    integrated information systems; provide our customers with responsive
    information technology and customer support; provide an information
    technology environment that protects sensitive information and supports
    data integrity; leverage emerging technologies; and use best
    information technology management practices.
        In summary form, the requested increase consists of the following:

                                                                 In millions

    Funding for Y2K solutions for non-mission critical systems as well
        as a contingency to handle any problems that might occur with
        the mission-critical systems..................................  $7.5
    Funding for upgraded data communications capability for member
        state offices (WAN upgrade)...................................   3.5
    Funding for digital technology for the Senate Recording Studio....   2.3
    Funding for installation of robotic cameras in committee rooms and
        associated control rooms......................................   2.1
    Funding for continued support of the recently upgraded commercial
        information and newswire services.............................   1.1
    Funding for a new e-mail system and related products..............   1.0
    Funding for annual COLA and merit increases.......................   2.4
    Other (training, human resources and contract management).........   1.9
                                                                      ______
          TOTAL.......................................................  21.8

        We do not minimize the size of the requested increase. As can be
    seen above, about one-third of the increase relates to the Y2K problem.
    We believe that the Senate is well prepared for Year 2000. However, no
    one can assure us that some still unforeseen problems will not occur.
    Therefore, we must be prepared to make immediate repairs or replace
    systems which fail. We have included $7.5 million in the fiscal year
    2000 budget request for contingency funding for mission critical
    systems ($3 million); for funding for the completion of the remediation
    of non-mission critical systems ($3.5 million); and funding for
    technical support for these continuing renovations ($1 million).
        The Recording Studio has developed plans to convert all operations
    to digital technology in order to upgrade the quality of our
    production, to more efficiently provide for the archiving and storage
    of recordings of Senate proceedings. This initiative is expected to be
    expensive in terms of the initial equipment and installation costs and
    will be funded over several years. The initial funding requested in the
    amount of $2.3 million will enable the studio to begin studying,
    acquiring and testing the new technology. A major benefit of this
    advanced technology is that it will allow immediate access to video
    recording of floor proceedings which will enable staff to view and edit
    videos from their offices almost instantaneously. Digital technology
    offers faster access to archived video; greater clarity and resolution;
    a more efficient transfer mode to the Library of Congress and the
    National Archives; and reduced physical storage requirements.
        The Recording Studio plans to continue its placement of robotic
    cameras in committee hearing rooms. We currently have requests from
    seven committees for robotic camera coverage. We have included funding
    of $2.1 million to equip four committee and control rooms in our
    request based on the limits of our ability to provide for the
    installation and testing of these systems during fiscal year 2000.
        The Wide Area Network (WAN) Upgrade Project is an integral phase of
    the Senate's overall five-year network upgrade plan which began in
    1997. This upgrade will enable member state offices to efficiently
    conduct Senate business by maximizing the use of emerging and rapidly
    growing technologies. The WAN upgrade will enable member state offices
    to have improved WAN service capacity, capability and quality of
    service. The goal is to enable the convergence of secured data, voice
    and video communication services to state offices in order to leverage
    technologies such as video streaming and multimedia. Our current wide
    area network infrastructure is severely taxed in many state sites, and
    with the expanding deployment of Web based and Web enabled
    applications, we anticipate a corresponding explosion in network
    capacity demands now and into the future. The Senate's five year data
    network implementation plan was validated by an independent data
    network research consulting firm in 1998. This group confirmed the
    soundness of the strategy of using proven technology while protecting
    the Senate's current investments. The firm also verified that the
    proposed data network architecture is sufficiently robust, flexible and
    adaptable for rapid growth as we continue to introduce new technologies
    to our base services.
        During this fiscal year SAA engineers are engaged in feasibility
    studies, research, proofs of concept, design and planning activities
    associated with preparing for implementation of the WAN upgrade during
    fiscal year 2000. Preparatory network engineering to be completed
    during fiscal year 1999 includes: Identifying State Office WAN
    applications, performance requirements and workload categorizing;
    matching the appropriate WAN technology and services; Data Network
    Infrastructure Engineering and Cost Study; and Equipment and Service
    Vendor Procurement and Selection.
        Current planning incorporates a combination of frame relay and
    Internet secured virtual private networks as key underpinnings to the
    WAN infrastructure. Inclusion of ``last mile connectivity''
    technologies such as DSL/Cable Modem will readily enable high bandwidth
    multi-media services for the state offices.
        We have included $3.5 million in the budget request for fiscal year
    2000 for this initiative. About $2 million in costs are for the
    purchase of higher capacity communications equipment and $1.5 million
    is for recurring usage charges.
        During the past year, the Rules Committee requested that we expand
    the on-line commercial information services provided to Senate offices
    to obtain a broader base of ``newswire'' information on a real time
    basis, to allow more choice in the news service offerings, and to
    acquire legislative information not available from LIS. The expansion
    of these services adds about $1.1 million to our annual operating
    costs.
        We are also seeking funding to replace our existing e-mail
    software. The maker of our current e-mail software has announced that
    it will not develop its product beyond the current design. We have
    begun a planning program to develop our e-mail functional and technical
    requirements and will soon be in position to select a replacement
    product capable of meeting our future needs. This adds about $1 million
    to our budget request.
        We have included $2.4 million within our salary accounts for the
    annual COLA and periodic merit increases. You may recall that last year
    we had all Sergeant at Arms jobs evaluated and classified into a
    unified structure. Formal salary ranges were established. Where
    necessary, we moved staff to the minimum of the new pay scales. We
    expect that this classification structure with formal salary ranges
    will help retain our qualified professionals. This funding request
    allows us to attract and retain the high quality skilled workforce
    needed to maintain current service levels and to implement the
    significant programs described above.
        Lastly, we have included funding to expand our professional
    management training program, to better support our human resources
    program and to greatly improve our contract management capabilities.
                                   y2k update
        I now would like to update this Committee on our efforts to ensure
    that the Senate's mission critical systems are capable of operating in
    the Year 2000. At our hearing last year, we set forth the principles of
    our work to ensure operating capability in the Year 2000. Conceptually,
    these principles address problem awareness, system assessment and
    system renovation, validation and implementation. Today, I would like
    to focus on the current status of our work.
        The Year 2000 compliance project is perhaps the most important and
    pervasive information technology project ever undertaken by the Senate.
    The issue facing us is not the complexity of the Y2K technology
    solutions. Indeed, the solutions are often the least of the problem.
    Rather, it is the daunting task of assessing each of the Senate's key
    business functions, determining where we are at risk, and then
    determining what it takes to implement and validate solutions. This
    task is made more complex by having to balance our resources to ensure
    that all this work will be accomplished in time without causing undue
    disruption to the daily business of the Senate. Simply stated, the real
    difficulty lies in the size and scope of the overall Year 2000 effort
    itself.
        Efforts to address the Year 2000 issue were initiated within the
    Sergeant at Arms organization in 1996. However, it was not until the
    formal establishment of the Year 2000 Compliance Project Office in
    January, 1998 that a comprehensive approach was put into place
    specifically to guide Year 2000 related projects and monitor their
    progress. Our Year 2000 Compliance Project Office has assisted in
    defining the Senate's overall direction in terms of program guidelines,
    operating principles, budgeting and reporting. The nature of the Senate
    environment, however, requires a highly decentralized execution in
    terms of assessing, renovating, testing, validating, and implementing
    Year 2000 compliant systems. To assist with the total project, a Year
    2000 Master Plan was developed and has enabled us to intensively manage
    our compliance objectives and assign accountability.
        One of the first steps taken by the project office was the adoption
    of the General Accounting Office's 5-phase approach to Year 2000
    project management. As this process was being implemented, we also
    requested that the General Accounting Office appoint advisors with whom
    we could consult as necessary. I am happy to report that our GAO
    advisors are key partners in our success on Year 2000 projects. Using
    their analytical skills and consulting advice, as well as those of an
    independent on-site contractor, we have been able to augment Sergeant
    at Arms resources, determine the specific risks and vulnerabilities for
    our supported systems, and work to mitigate those risks.
        How were we able to get to this point? We looked at each
    information technology system in use by the Senate, determined whether
    it was mission-critical, and assigned resources where necessary to
    develop plans designed to bring it into compliance. From assessment
    through renovation, validation and implementation, we required each
    system program manager to provide project plans, schedules and
    milestones. We set up a system to monitor and report progress
    centrally. As time went on, it became clear that additional information
    was required and we instituted a rotating schedule of monthly briefings
    on each of the mission-critical projects. Because knowledge and
    cooperation are keys to success in this endeavor, we have opened these
    meetings not only to Sergeant at Arms employees, but also to the GAO
    and the Secretary of the Senate. This exchange has paved the way to an
    open, cooperative forum in which disparate groups function in a fully
    participative and cohesive manner.
        Finally, I would add that throughout our Y2K efforts, we have used
    this enormous challenge to make significant progress in the improvement
    of the Senate's information technology infrastructure. As you will see
    from the discussion of our mission critical systems, we have been able
    to bring the Senate forward in terms of modernizing our computer
    operations from the mainframe enterprise applications to the individual
    desktop work stations.
        What are our mission-critical systems? How were they determined?
    Why did we designate these 22 systems and how do they impact Senate
    offices? The Year 2000 issue is really a business problem more than a
    technology problem. Therefore, we first defined the primary business
    functions of the Senate. Then we identified the information technology
    systems required to support those functions. The top three functions of
    the United States Senate were defined as: (1) the creation of
    legislation, (2) financial management, including payroll, procurement,
    and accounting functions, and (3) constituent services.
        In addition to these three functions, we designated
    telecommunication services, including both our voice and data networks,
    as also mission-critical. In fact, of the 22 mission-critical systems,
    nine are specifically related to the transmission of data between
    offices both in Washington, D.C. and in members' home states.
        We also designated desktop computers, including both hardware and
    software, as mission-critical. These systems support the day-to-day
    operations of member and committee offices. The remainder of the
    mission-critical systems are those which specifically support the key
    business of the Senate, that is, the legislative, financial management
    and constituent services functions. Thus, the Senate's mainframe
    computer, which runs important Senate and Capitol Police applications,
    is mission-critical. Similarly, the Correspondence Management Systems
    and the local area networks in every office, are mission-critical. We
    also designated electronic mail as a mission- critical system.
        Not every system in use by the Senate made the mission-critical
    list. In fact, only 22 of 65 systems were so designated. This is
    because the determination of mission-criticality was made after we
    asked the question, ``Could the Senate continue to function if a
    particular system was not available to users after the century
    changed?'' Often, the answer was `yes' even if it meant that a ``work-
    around'' solution would need to be developed. As an example, could the
    Senate function without an automated human resource system to track
    applicants and jobs? The answer was yes. Would it be inconvenient? Yes,
    it would, but these tasks could be completed manually until the system
    was remediated.
        Now, what is the status of our mission-critical systems? Of the 22,
    three are considered fully renovated, tested and implemented. These are
    our telephone switches, Frame Relay system and local phone service. A
    fourth, our long distance service, is awaiting certification pending
    release of test results from a major telecommunications firm and a
    fifth, the secure telephones in many Senate offices and several
    Committees, have been certified by the National Security Agency and we
    are awaiting their certification by GAO. A sixth system, the Senate's
    Fiber Network, requires only upgrades of the routers in the states and
    that is scheduled for completion in April.
        Two additional systems have been renovated and are completing their
    Y2K testing now. These are the Senate's Payroll System and our
    mainframe computer on which it operates. These systems are far along
    and we do not anticipate any setbacks. In fact, Senate staff can rest
    assured that their paychecks will continue to be issued. Thus, of our
    22 mission-critical systems, we can confirm that eight are completed or
    nearly finished and will work in a Year 2000 environment.
        The Senate's Legislative Information System, or LIS, and Financial
    Management Information System, or FMIS--two initiatives managed by the
    Secretary of the Senate, and for which we provide significant support--
    are currently being implemented and tested at the same time. Underlying
    the new LIS are two feeder systems for which the Sergeant at Arms has
    responsibility. These are the Amendment Tracking System and the
    Committee Scheduling System. The Amendment Tracking System is already
    up and running and the Committee Scheduling System is fully developed
    and will be Y2K tested with LIS.
        Correspondence Management Systems, which are heavily used in Member
    offices, are also under intense scrutiny. Each of our vendors has been
    tasked to provide documentation on their Year 2000 compliance status
    and the test plans and test results from their own internal Year 2000
    efforts. In addition, we set up a separate laboratory at Postal Square
    for Sergeant at Arms technical staff to validate and confirm the
    vendors' test results.
        With regard to the computer equipment in Senate offices, 32
    percent, or close to 3,000 personal computers, have been installed and
    certified as Year 2000 compliant. An additional effort is underway now
    to inventory, test and remediate all upgradable older PC's to Year 2000
    compliance. Another initiative, a Special Year 2000 workstation and
    server replacement project for selected offices, has been approved by
    this Committee, and is underway.
        As a note of interest, renovating computer hardware is relatively
    simple--you either upgrade this equipment or you replace it. The more
    difficult challenge is the application software loaded on a workstation
    and whether it has been modified or customized. Vendors can certify
    software as Year 2000 compliant based on their internal tests. However,
    many offices may use that software in such a way as to render it non-
    compliant based on a calculation they may have entered or by changing
    the manufacturer's intent of use. We are conducting a comprehensive
    inventory in all Senate offices to give us a better idea of the risks
    we may face with this type of installed software.
        The fifteenth and sixteenth mission-critical systems actually
    include two similar systems which are the Vote Tally Systems for the
    Republican and Democratic Policy Committees. These are new products
    which have been developed and are being implemented and tested now. By
    the way, these RPC and DPC systems are a logical back up, or
    contingency plan, for the Senate's Legislative Information System.
        The last six systems are the Radio System in use by the Capitol
    Police, the Senate Paging System, the Group Alert, the Senate's
    Electronic Mail, and two important systems in use by the Senate
    Recording Studio. The Capitol Police will receive a new Year 2000
    compliant radio system which we expect to be installed and operational
    by the end of July. The current radio system is at the end of its
    operational life and cannot be made Year 2000 compliant. The Senate's
    Paging System is in Y2K testing now. We plan to replace components
    which are not compliant and operate with the same system after December
    31st. Additionally, we will take this opportunity to begin to plan for
    a complete replacement of the paging system to meet future anticipated
    needs. The Group Alert system, which supports both the Cloakrooms, is
    being renovated during the next Senate recess. We expect to complete
    this effort next month. The next mission-critical system, the Senate's
    E-mail, is actually a number of components which must all be made Year
    2000 compliant. Then, each component must be tested and the system as a
    whole must be tested. The major component of this system is the office
    mail system or ``cc:Mail'' which is currently being upgraded to the
    Year 2000 compliant version in all offices. The last two systems belong
    to our Recording Studio. These are the ``Flexicart'' system which
    enables us to record video tapes in a computerized manner, and the
    Senate Floor Audio System which provides audio to the TV/Radio rooms
    and the Galleries. Both systems are under contract with the vendors for
    Y2K testing. We will validate and certify the test results ourselves.
        We also oversee a continuous and comprehensive Year 2000 awareness
    effort to keep Senate staff informed. To assist Senate offices with
    their own internal Year 2000 plans, a Senate-only Year 2000 web site
    has been created. This site contains information on such items as how
    to test a PC for Year 2000 compliancy, which non-compliant PC's can be
    upgraded to compliancy, and how to do the upgrade. The Web Site also
    contains a software database with information on the compliance of
    software packages used on a regular basis within the Senate. In
    addition, a business continuity plan template was recently added to
    allow Senate offices to develop a plan for continuity of operations
    specific to their own environment.
        In addition to the systems under the specific responsibility of the
    Sergeant at Arms office, our interaction and interface with other
    Capitol Hill offices and other federal agencies also are being
    investigated. We have conducted Year 2000 Vulnerability assessments for
    the Secretary of the Senate, the United States Capitol Police, and this
    Committee. We have ongoing assessments in both the Architect of the
    Capitol and the Government Printing Office. We are conducting these
    assessments to highlight risks from the Sergeant at Arms point of view
    as opposed to compliancy reports on any of these entities.
        These assessments have been invaluable. For example, the formal
    assessment of the United States Capitol Police was completed in
    September. The summary briefing provided several recommendations for
    further USCP actions to minimize the risk of Year 2000 failures and to
    prepare for recovery from failures should any occur.
        As of today, the Capitol Police are reporting ten of their 19
    mission-critical systems as renovated, validated and implemented. These
    include their local area network, application servers, file servers,
    database servers, workstations, off site delivery application, reports
    processing application, physical security systems such as the Metorex
    200 metal detectors and PDS LAN, and the Intoxilyzer 5000. Other
    systems still under renovation include outside agency applications such
    as the National Finance Center and CJIS/WALES/NCIC; the SafeNet System
    Software for physical security, and applications which reside on the
    Sergeant at Arms mainframe. These cannot be tested until our new
    mainframe upgrade is installed. Additionally, there are the police
    communications systems which include radios, the central dispatch
    console, and alarm and video monitoring systems. The Capitol Police
    have made great strides towards completing their compliancy efforts.
        The issue we are most concerned with is the replacement of the
    Capitol Police radio dispatch console, which is being planned now. We
    intend to ensure that the Capitol Police will continue to be able to
    communicate and dispatch officers on a Year 2000 compliant console and
    provide the life-safety protection for which they are responsible.
        We are also concerned about the Senate's paging system, also
    provided by the same vendor. We are involved in intensive negotiations
    with the vendor to provide the Senate with current and accurate
    documentation on this system.
        I would like to say that every system used in the Senate will work
    and work well in the Year 2000. However, that is unrealistic. Given the
    time frame and the number of systems and variables we face, it was
    prudent to concentrate efforts on those areas deemed most critical to
    the Senate and that, in fact, is the hard decision that was made. I am
    confident, however, in my ability to say that the Senate will be able
    to conduct its business when the clock rolls over to January 1, 2000.
    This will require a continuous and concerted effort on our part and
    will require cooperation from the entire Senate, not just Sergeant at
    Arms employees. The effect of these combined efforts will indeed enable
    the United States Senate to weather the approaching Year 2000 computing
    crisis.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal testimony. I want to express
    my thanks to the Committee for its continuing support of the Sergeant
    at Arms and I stand ready to respond to any questions you may have.

                                   Y2K issues

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We appreciate the
    comprehensive analysis of where you are. You have obviously
    gotten a good start and taken hold of an office that is very
    important to all of us.
        I am a little concerned about the late date on some of
    these Y2K issues. The reason that I will accept your assurance
    that it is all going to work is that in the greater scheme of
    things you are a relatively small operation. If I were getting
    these kinds of dates out of the Defense Department or the IRS
    or some of the others I would be very nervous.
        The General Accounting Office has begun a program of
    leasing their computers. This is a capital budget. Do you want
    to talk about the possibility of leasing for the Senate offices
    rather than purchasing?
        Mr. Ziglar. It is interesting that you raise that question.
    I have not yet raised the specter of that at the Senate office
    level, and as you know, the obsolescence factor of computers
    makes leasing a fairly expensive proposition. I have been,
    however, looking at that issue in the context of the Capitol
    Police and some of their vehicles and equipment that have a
    fairly lengthy lifespan. I have an interest in leasing, and as
    you know, in the right format it can be a very cost-efficient
    way of going, particularly if the person providing the vehicle
    has a tax incentive to do it.
        So the answer is, I have not looked at that in the context
    of the computers and equipment in the Senate offices, but it is
    something I have an interest in and am looking at in the
    context of the police.
        Senator Bennett. I do not know if you are a devotee of C.
    Northcote Parkinson, the author of Parkinson's Law, but one of
    the statements that he makes is that the amount of time spent
    discussing a budgetary issue is in inverse proportion to the
    size of the budget. In other words, the typical business group
    will approve a $43 million nuclear reactor in 17 seconds flat,
    or something, because no one understands it, but they will
    spend 5 hours debating the coffee pot in the day room because
    everybody has an opinion on that.

                                   Barbershop

        At the risk of getting into that kind of thing, and where
    we spend an inordinate amount of time talking about something
    that is very low-level expenditure, do you want to talk about
    salaries for the barbershop? [Laughter.]
        Mr. Ziglar. I am very happy you asked that question,
    because the amount of time that we spend on the barbershop, the
    hair care services issue, is out of proportion to the
    expenditure. That is a perfectly good example, I must say.
        We have been attempting to reach parity, if you will, where
    the barbershop shop is not losing money and it is carrying its
    own weight. The hair care services, I am sorry. I come from
    where a barbershop is a barbershop.
        Senator Bennett. I am sorry I led you down that road with
    my question.
        Mr. Ziglar. As you know, we have put it on a commission
    structure. We have changed the level of compensation for the
    barbers in connection with the commission structure. There is
    still a lot of unhappiness there about salary levels, at least
    among some of those barbers there, and we are attempting to
    address it.
        There are a variety of, two or three different ways of
    going about this that we are discussing with your staff and
    with the Rules Committee. In the final analysis, Senator, it is
    probably not the most popular thing to say, but my view is this
    thing ought to be privatized.
        It ought not to be a Senate function, but that is just my
    own personal view of it, and I think they have done that over
    in the House, as I understand it. I think it is working over
    there, and I would in the long term like for us to be able to
    try to consider the option of privatizing. In the short-term
    however, in order to maintain civility, we are looking at
    several options in terms of making adjustments so that people
    who have been here for a long time are not suffering in their
    income as a result of our making changes in the system.
        So I think there is some equity, some fairness we need to
    bring to the process, but in the long term I am not sure that
    this is a function that the Senate ought to be in, but that is
    just my personal view, Senator.
        Senator Bennett. I will not add to the amount of time spent
    discussing this issue, other than to comment, if you want to
    talk about fairness, I do not understand why I have to pay the
    same price that the Majority Leader has to pay. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Ziglar. I am not responding to that one, Senator.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We appreciate all you
    do, and appreciate your staff, and we will pay close attention
    to the request you made. I think this is a responsible budget
    request, and we will try to respond to it in a responsible way.
        Mr. Ziglar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We
    appreciate it.
                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    STATEMENT OF DAN L. CRIPPEN, DIRECTOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            BARRY B. ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
            POLLY E. HODGES, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER

                             biographical sketches

        Senator Bennett. Our third witness is Mr. Dan Crippen, the
    Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Good morning, sir,
    and he is joined by Barry Anderson, the new Deputy Director of
    CBO, and Polly Hodges, the Budget and Financial Officer.
        As the Sergeant at Arms leaves he seems to be taking all of
    the crowd with him.
        Mr. Crippen, we welcome you to the committee. I understand
    you assumed your position on February 4, and so this is your
    first appearance before the committee. We will submit for the
    record and institutional memory of the committee a copy of your
    biography as well as Mr. Anderson's biography, and we welcome
    you to this most demanding and essential kind of service upon
    which the Congress depends so heavily.
        [The information follows:]

                     Biographical Sketch of Dan L. Crippen

        Dan L. Crippen is the fifth director of the Congressional
    Budget Office. Mr. Crippen, who was appointed in February 1999,
    has served in senior positions in the White House and the U.S.
    Senate and is a specialist in issues relating to the federal
    budget, health care, retirement, trade, and telecommunications.
        From 1987 to 1989, he served as the President's adviser on
    all issues relating to domestic policy, including the
    preparation and presentation of the federal budget. In the
    Senate, he served as chief counsel and economic policy adviser
    to the Senate Majority Leader from 1981 to 1985, working on
    major tax and budget bills as well as other legislation.
        Mr. Crippen also has substantial experience in the private
    sector. Before joining CBO, he was a principal with Washington
    Counsel, a consulting firm. He has also served as executive
    director of the Merrill Lynch International Advisory Council
    and as senior vice president of the Duberstein Group. Mr.
    Crippen has a Ph.D. in public finance.
                                    ------

                    Biographical Sketch of Barry B. Anderson

        Barry B. Anderson has had a lengthy career in the federal
    government. From 1988 to 1998, he was the senior career
    official at the Office of Management and Budget, where he
    directed the analysis behind and the production of the
    President's budget proposals. From 1980 to 1988, he held
    various management and analytic positions at OMB, and from 1972
    to 1980, he was an economist with the General Accounting
    Office.
        Before his appointment as Deputy Director of CBO in
    February 1999, he was a vice president with the Jefferson
    Consulting Group. Mr. Anderson has a B.S. from the University
    of Illinois, an M.B.A. from the University of Washington at
    Seattle, and has done postgraduate work in econometrics at
    George Washington University.

        Senator Bennett. CBO has requested $26.8 million for fiscal
    2000, which is a 4.5 percent increase over the 1999 level,
    which I assume we will be told is once again with the COLA's.
        I will ask you the question that I do not ask anybody else,
    why the COLA is 4.5 percent when inflation in fact is at zero,
    effectively, but that seems to be the way the Federal
    Government works.
        We welcome you here. We are delighted to have you, and look
    forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Crippen. Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be pleasantly
    brief. I would like to introduce, as you already recognized, my
    Deputy, Barry Anderson, and for the record want you to know
    that Barry retired about this time a year ago from the Office
    of Management and Budget after 18 years of service in the
    executive branch. Before that, he worked at the General
    Accounting Office. Frankly, if he had declined my invitation to
    join me, I do not know whether I would have taken this job. He
    is a very valuable resource and is very knowledgeable about how
    these things work.
        With your permission, sir, I will submit my prepared
    remarks for the record and just spend a couple of minutes
    summarizing.

                            Fiscal year 2000 request

        As you said, for fiscal year 2000 we are requesting
    $26,821,000--an increase of 4.5 percent over our fiscal year
    1999 appropriation. That request funds our current staff
    ceiling of 232 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions. We are not
    asking for any additional positions.
        Personnel costs continue to dominate our budget, accounting
    for 86 percent of the request. Computer-related spending
    accounts for 8 percent, a historical low. Administrative
    expenses use up the remaining 6 percent.
        In order to help offset the 6 percent increase in personnel
    costs that we anticipate for next year, we plan to reduce
    spending for automated data processing by 7 percent.
        Mr. Chairman, as you said, I have only been at the
    Congressional Budget Office (CBO) a few weeks, and I have
    discovered, even though I knew something about CBO before I
    arrived, that there is much more there than meets the eye. Just
    since February 3, when Barry and I moved into our offices, CBO
    has issued seven major reports and studies, presented testimony
    to congressional committees 12 times, and produced 58 cost
    estimates for proposed legislation, all of that in the past
    seven weeks.
        Mr. Chairman, sometime ago you also asked CBO to develop an
    early-warning system to keep the Congress informed of
    fluctuations in spending and revenue patterns, and I want to do
    a 30-second report for you. We developed our Monthly Budget
    Review, which is widely circulated on the Hill and available on
    our Web site. It has actually become one of our most popular
    products, judging from the number of requests we are getting,
    and so it was a very good suggestion you made, and we are glad
    to have implemented it.
        In fact, our products are now available on the Web and in
    hard copy. Virtually the same day we issue a report, we also
    put it up on the Web, and it has been a very popular site.
    Traffic is increasing daily.

                   Personnel issues: Recruiting and retention

        Now, Mr. Chairman, despite our apparent productivity, we
    face a continuing challenge to recruit and retain top-quality
    professionals. Indeed, that is my biggest challenge. After we
    get through the first few weeks of dealing with the President's
    budget and the budget resolutions, I desperately need to turn
    to this issue.
        We are well below our FTE ceiling because we are
    increasingly outbid in the job market. Although we understand
    that we cannot radically alter our salary structure, we are
    seeking your permission to offer bonuses for new hires and also
    to reward outstanding performance. Those bonuses will not
    entail additional appropriations but rather a reallocation of
    resources. Our competitors both inside and outside government
    have the authority to offer such bonuses.

                               Y2K status report

        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention briefly where we
    are on the Year 2000 (Y2K) issue. As you know better than I, it
    is not possible to predict the severity or duration of any
    potential Y2K effect. We are taking what I hope you will agree
    is a commonsense approach. There is nothing in our mission
    around the first of the year that is critical to the operations
    of the Congress.
        Our first priority, as it must be for all agencies, is to
    ameliorate the possibility of a localized problem that might
    hinder our ability to access our computer files. Such a
    scenario would make it difficult for us to supply basic
    information to the Congress on a timely basis. As insurance, we
    will maintain copies of all of our critical data bases. For
    example, the CBO baseline--the primary tool against which we
    measure all legislation and which we normally complete in
    December--will be made available in both hard copy and in
    several stored media forms. We will be able to use it manually
    as well as on computers.
        We have a team that plans to be in the office on New Year's
    Eve to conduct a series of final tests. Live testing is the
    only way to evaluate and respond to any problems that might
    arise; that approach will give us a few days if we need
    additional time to fix things up.
        As with many other agencies, our biggest vulnerabilities
    are those in interconnections outside our purview. Fortunately,
    most of our contact with the outside world consists of
    interconnections with other Federal entities that are taking
    the same prudent steps and that you are monitoring in this
    process. We do not rely on outside, nonpublic vendors to any
    great degree.

                               prepared statement

        With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss our appropriation request with the committee today. I
    would be happy to address any questions you have.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Dan L. Crippen
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    present the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO). The mission of CBO is to provide the Congress with
    the objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis it needs for making
    decisions about the economy and the budget and to furnish the
    information and estimates required for the Congressional budget
    process. CBO does not make policy recommendations; instead, it presents
    the Congress with options and alternatives in a wide range of subject
    areas, all of which have economic and budgetary effects.
        I submit as an attachment to this testimony our latest Director's
    Report on Work Activities of the Congressional Budget Office, which we
    submitted to the Senate and House Committees on the Budget in January.
    That report documents in detail our major work products and activities
    during 1998 and our work plan for 1999. It also includes a statement of
    CBO's policies for preparing and distributing estimates and analyses
    and lists the current membership of CBO's Panel of Economic Advisers.
                            fiscal year 2000 request
        For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $26,821,000--an increase of
    4.5 percent, or $1,150,000, over our fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
    That request funds our staff ceiling of 232 full-time-equivalent
    positions. We are not asking for any additional positions.
        Personnel costs account for the largest share of CBO's budget--86.2
    percent. Computer-related spending accounts for 7.5 percent, a
    historical low. Administrative expenses account for 6.3 percent, which
    is below our historical average. Specifically, our request:
      --Provides a 6 percent increase in spending for personnel, which
            comprises annualized fiscal year 1999 pay raises, merit
            increases for fiscal year 2000 averaging 2 percent of pay, and
            a 4.4 percent across-the-board pay adjustment in January 2000
            (the increase in the President's pay assumptions). The budget
            proposal assumes that performance and recruitment bonuses will
            be paid for by reduced merit pay raises and savings from staff
            turnover.
      --Realizes a 7 percent reduction in spending for automated data
            processing (ADP) and systems and for data and model
            development. That reduction includes $100,000 in savings from
            moving the mainframe applications of CBO's Tax Analysis and
            Health and Human Resources Divisions from House Information
            Resources to the Library of Congress. (That estimate contains
            no adjustment for the possible relocation of four mission-
            critical mainframe applications maintained by the Budget
            Analysis Division.)
      --Spending for all other expenses, such as utilities, printing, and
            supplies, increases by 2 percent. Price increases averaging 3.8
            percent are offset by a drop in the demand for spending in
            several areas, such as copier replacements and graphic arts.
               areas of concern relating to cbo's budget request
        Although CBO should be able to maintain its current workload with
    the funds requested here, the agency is increasingly concerned about
    its ability to offer the salaries and benefits needed to remain
    competitive in today's tight labor market.
        Most CBO employees are economists and other quantitatively skilled
    professionals, all of whom are in particularly high demand. We are
    finding it increasingly difficult to retain our experienced workers,
    which is one reason that CBO's merit pay request for fiscal year 2000
    is so important.
        Attracting top-flight new employees is also a problem that could
    prove critical to our work. Competition for top-quality Ph.D.
    economists is intense; thus, those economists now demand very high
    salaries. The limitations on the compensation we can offer candidates
    have become a major impediment to attracting top talent. With
    increasing frequency we lose qualified people to employers who can pay
    more.
        CBO operates at a disadvantage compared with federal employers that
    can provide locality pay raises and give lump-sum bonuses to attract
    and retain exceptional workers. To help overcome that competitive
    disadvantage, we have requested the authority to give bonuses using
    funds already in our personnel spending base. Those lump-sum payments
    would be used to attract new employees and to reward outstanding
    performance. They would enhance CBO's ability to compete with the
    General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service, other
    federal agencies, and the private sector for professional and
    management talent.
        If granted that authority, no more than 1 percent of budgeted
    payroll would be used for recruiting and performance bonuses. At least
    75 percent of the total bonuses awarded would be based on performance,
    and the maximum allowable individual award would not exceed 10 percent
    of the employee's annual salary. Awards to employees would not increase
    their base salary level and hence would not affect contributions for
    retirement and life insurance.
        Also, to relieve growing salary compression, CBO has asked the
    House and Senate Budget Committees to raise the pay rates of the CBO
    Director and Deputy Director by one level each. That change will be
    considered later this year as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of
    1999, as introduced on January 19 by Senate Budget Committee Chairman
    Domenici.
                               y2k status report
        CBO is working closely with the General Accounting Office to ensure
    that all of its ADP and associated computer systems comply with Year
    2000 (Y2K) requirements, and we are making substantial progress. As you
    know, CBO relies on the mainframe computer at House Information
    Resources (HIR) to run its database applications. CBO uses the HIR
    mainframe for a variety of analytic work, but the applications related
    to our budget database are particularly critical for providing timely
    support to the House and Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees.
    We use those applications to track and analyze Presidential spending
    proposals and subsequent Congressional action. The HIR mainframe is the
    repository of the President's annual budget, CBO's baseline
    projections, numerous data sets used by the House and Senate Budget
    Committees in developing annual budget resolutions, and data sets that
    track appropriation and other spending bills as well as associated CBO
    estimates of outlays.
        Last year we shared with you our concern that the scheduled
    retirement of the HIR mainframe in 2000 presented a complex and
    potentially costly challenge to CBO because we would have to relocate
    our mainframe applications. But that is no longer a Y2K issue. HIR has
    revised its mainframe lease so that the House can continue its
    mainframe operations through March 2001. We will therefore be able to
    run our four mission-critical systems on the HIR mainframe computer
    well into 2000.
        CBO is moving aggressively to ensure that the other computer
    systems used by its divisions and individual employees are also Y2K
    compliant. CBO established a Y2K test center with a network that runs
    compliant software and a 2001 system date. Employees are testing all of
    their computer systems--not just those requiring the CBO test network--
    to ensure Y2K compliance. To date, 90 percent of our employees have
    completed that reporting requirement. Roughly 10 percent of the systems
    tested have been found to be noncompliant, and those systems are being
    updated or replaced. Those actions will be completed, and all CBO
    systems will be compliant, by October 1, 1999.
        CBO participates in three interagency groups dedicated to Y2K
    planning and cooperation: the House Information Resources Y2K Action
    Team; the Legislative Data Standards Committee--Y2 Task Force; and the
    Legislative Branch Y2K Business Continuity Contingency Planning Group.
    In addition, CBO is coordinating with the Department of Agriculture's
    National Finance Center to ensure that CBO's personnel and payroll
    system will operate accurately in the new millennium.
                      appropriation tracking system update
        CBO is part of the House and Senate database exchange--the All
    Purpose Table system--that tracks and scores actions for the House and
    Senate Appropriations Committees. That system is now being updated and
    will ultimately be replaced by the new Appropriations Decision Support
    System (ADSS). The Committees recently instructed CBO to adopt the new
    system. Because no funds were provided in CBO's fiscal year 1999
    appropriation for that purpose, I wrote to the Committee requesting
    permission to reprogram $195,000 from personnel spending to equipment.
                            managing cbo information
        As we reported last year, CBO's documents are now available on the
    World Wide Web (at www.cbo.gov) in four electronic file formats. In
    addition to its reports and studies, CBO is making all of its general
    work products available on the Web, including papers and memorandums,
    testimonies, unfunded mandate statements, federal bill cost estimates,
    and special analyses such as the Monthly Budget Review and reports on
    the current status of discretionary appropriations. In October, CBO
    posted its 1,000th document on the Web site.
        CBO's Web site is designed to make the information it contains
    widely and immediately accessible to Congressional users and the
    general public. In developing the Web site, CBO consulted with staff of
    the Congressional Research Service to ensure that the site would be
    compatible with the Legislative Information System. More recently, CBO
    improved the cost estimates section to incorporate requests for
    specific information from the staffs of the budget committees. The
    office will continue to work with the Congress, and especially the
    staffs of the budget committees, to ensure that the Web site is as
    responsive as it can be to their informational needs.
        Since it came on-line in August 1997, the CBO Web site has recorded
    almost 5 million hits from a diverse audience of users, including
    Congressional staff, other government offices, news agencies,
    researchers, and students. More than 850,000 pages have been reviewed
    or downloaded by site visitors from 98 countries. Almost 10,000
    requests for information are received each day.
        In conjunction with development of the Web site and to improve
    CBO's responsiveness to the Congressionally mandated Research
    Notification System, CBO has designed and brought on-line a new
    management information system. It enables us to identify and track the
    progress of CBO products from their initiation to their completion.
        The agency has also made substantial progress in processing its
    official documents in keeping with the requirements of the National
    Archives and Records Administration. Those documents range from
    official correspondence and personnel files to the full gamut of CBO
    reports, studies, papers, memorandums, and other products. Within the
    past year, CBO has committed to permanent storage or has destroyed, in
    compliance with regulations, approximately 25 percent of its file
    documents. CBO anticipates continued progress in 1999 in fulfilling the
    legal mandate to preserve records deemed important to the government
    and the public.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, CBO's recent budget requests have been quite modest.
    Our present proposal represents our best estimate of the amount needed
    to maintain our budget at the current-services level. The requested
    increase of 4.5 percent is less than that requested by the Office of
    Management and Budget, the Congressional Research Service, and the
    General Accounting Office. We believe that this level of funding is
    necessary if we are to continue to serve the Congress in the manner it
    has come to expect.
                                     ______

       Director's Report on Work Activities of the Congressional Budget
                              Office--January 1999
        The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created the Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO) to provide technical support on budget-related
    issues to all committees in the Senate and the House, with primary
    responsibility to the Senate and House Committees on the Budget. The
    office's mission is to provide the Congress with the objective, timely,
    nonpartisan analysis it needs for making decisions about the economy
    and the budget and to furnish the information and estimates required
    for the Congressional budget process. This document summarizes the
    office's major activities during 1998 and its work plan for 1999.
                        cbo's statutory responsibilities
        The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires CBO to prepare
    several specific reports to the Committees on the Budget each year,
    including periodic assessments of the economic and budget outlook, and
    to conduct continuing studies on budgetary matters. The act also
    directs CBO to prepare estimates of the costs that the government would
    incur in carrying out the provisions of proposed legislation reported
    by Congressional committees. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    requires CBO to prepare estimates of the direct costs of all federal
    mandates that are contained in legislation reported by any authorizing
    committee in either House that affect state, local, or tribal
    governments or the private sector. CBO also prepares analytical studies
    on various economic and budgetary matters at the request of
    Congressional committees. A statement of CBO's policies for preparing
    and distributing its estimates and analyses appears in Appendix A.
        CBO is the only part of the legislative branch whose mandate
    includes making economic forecasts and projections. Its forecasts and
    projections involve the major economic variables that affect the
    federal budget--gross domestic product, unemployment, inflation, and
    interest rates. The office does not attempt to forecast cyclical
    fluctuations in the economy more than two years ahead; instead, its
    longer-term projections are based on trends in the labor force,
    productivity, and saving. CBO examines recent data on the state of the
    economy, looks at historical relationships between economic variables,
    analyzes the results from formal economic models, and compares its
    economic projections with those of private forecasters. The office also
    relies on the advice of a distinguished panel of advisers that meets
    twice a year. The current members of that panel are shown in Appendix
    B.
        Economic forecasts and projections are a major ingredient of CBO's
    baseline revenue and spending projections. Those projections provide a
    benchmark for measuring the effects of proposed changes in tax and
    spending laws and serve as the starting point for developing
    Congressional budget resolutions. The projections are based on the
    Congress's most recent budgetary decisions and show what would happen
    if no new policy decisions were made over the 10-year projection
    period. Since many factors besides the major economic variables affect
    the budget projections, CBO closely monitors recent revenue and
    spending patterns and examines a wide range of other available
    information on trends in individual programs. CBO's economic and
    baseline budget projections are published early in the calendar year
    and are updated in the summer.
                        major work products during 1998
        Economic forecasts and baseline budget projections are an important
    part of CBO's work for the Congress, but only a part. During 1998, CBO
    completed more than 2,000 separate work products, including hundreds of
    cost estimates for legislative proposals and various analytic studies,
    papers, and memorandums. CBO also produced a substantial volume of
    letters and notes in response to Congressional inquiries and requests
    for information. In addition, CBO analysts consulted directly with
    Members of Congress, committees, and staff on a variety of issues,
    large and small, that are referred to the office daily.
        A major work product last year was CBO's response to the House
    Committee on Appropriations' report accompanying the Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Bill for 1999. That report directed CBO to provide
    certain information related to its work efforts. In response to that
    directive, the office transmitted to the Congressional leadership on
    July 23, 1998, a five-volume report providing a comprehensive overview
    of CBO's activities. A brief summary of each of the five volumes
    follows.
      --Projecting Federal Tax Revenues and the Effect of Changes in Tax
            Law describes CBO's models for projecting federal tax revenues,
            compares projected and actual revenues following recent changes
            in federal tax laws, and identifies the steps CBO has taken to
            improve the accuracy of its revenue projections.
      --Comparison of Actual and Projected Deficits, Fiscal Years 1993-1997
            explains the reasons for differences between estimated budget
            deficits and actual outcomes during the five-year period. CBO
            has continued its efforts to improve the accuracy of its budget
            estimates by searching for new sources of information, but the
            vagaries of the economy and other factors affecting the budget
            make complete accuracy elusive. CBO also continues to monitor
            collection of revenues and program spending in order to provide
            the Congress with current information on budget outcomes. CBO's
            Monthly Budget Review, which is based on daily and monthly
            statements of the Department of the Treasury, has become one of
            CBO's most popular and frequently requested publications.
      --An Analysis of CBO's Outlay Estimates for Appropriation Bills,
            Fiscal Years 1993-1997 provides an overview of the accuracy of
            CBO's estimates in aggregate over the five-year period. CBO's
            estimates of outlays for appropriation bills were quite
            accurate overall despite significant deviations for individual
            spending programs.
      --Description of Economic Models explains the various models that CBO
            uses to prepare its economic forecasts and analyses of the
            economic effects of legislative proposals. CBO's models reflect
            the ways in which government policies can affect the major
            decisions people make about saving and work. In those models,
            higher marginal tax rates can reduce work effort, discourage
            saving, and slow the growth of the economy; changes in
            entitlement programs for the elderly can influence people's
            decisions about retirement and saving for the future; and
            reducing the overall deficit or increasing the surplus can
            boost the U.S. capital stock, lower interest rates, and raise
            gross domestic product.
      --CBO's Policies for Preparing and Distributing Its Estimates and
            Analyses, together with an index of available CBO publications.
    Mandated and Other Reports
        Each year CBO publishes a number of reports on the budget and the
    economy as required by the Congressional Budget Act. Those annual
    reports followed a typical schedule in 1998, starting with the release
    of volume one, The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1999-2008,
    at hearings before the Senate Committee on the Budget on January 28 and
    the House Committee on the Budget on February 5. CBO published an
    update of that report in August. In January, CBO also released its
    annual report on unauthorized appropriations and expiring
    authorizations.
        Although not a mandated report, CBO's analysis of the
    Administration's budget, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary
    Proposals for Fiscal Year 1999, was prepared again at the request of
    the Senate Committee on Appropriations. That report was issued in March
    1998.
        Following consultation with budget committee staff, CBO elected to
    forgo a 1998 update of Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue
    Options in light of the rapidly improving budget picture. However, CBO
    released in May 1998 an update of its Long-Term Budgetary Pressures and
    Policy Options, which explores in some detail the fiscal implications
    pending when the baby-boom generation begins to retire about a decade
    from now. That publication is especially relevant to the current debate
    about Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs.
        Since 1986, CBO has been required by the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control Act to publish three sequestration reports.
    CBO issued the sequestration preview report in January, the update
    report in August, and a final report in November.
        In addition to the reports required by the Congressional Budget
    Act, CBO also issued a review of the Department of Defense's report on
    base realignment and closures, as required by the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
    Studies and Other Publications
        CBO also analyzes specific program and policy issues that affect
    the federal budget and the economy. Most requests for analyses come
    from the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of a full committee or
    subcommittee. The leadership of either party in the House or the Senate
    may also request a CBO analysis. In keeping with its nonpartisan
    mandate, CBO does not offer recommendations on policy.
        Studies.--The analyses in CBO's studies generally entail a
    substantial investment of time and resources. CBO issued three such
    studies in 1998.
        In January 1998, CBO published Innovative Financing of Highways: An
    Analysis of Proposals. That study, requested by the Senate Committee on
    Environment and Public Works, reviews several approaches to augment
    traditional sources of funding. The analysis covers changes in rules
    governing federal aid, state infrastructure banks, federal credit
    assistance, and private-sector financing goals.
        In July 1998, CBO released How Increased Competition from Generic
    Drugs Has Affected Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry.
    Requested by the Senate Committee on the Budget, that study examines
    the extent to which competition from generic drugs has increased under
    the 1984 Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (also
    known as the Hatch-Waxman Act).
        In December 1998, CBO published Regulatory Takings and Proposals
    for Change. Requested by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate
    Committee on Governmental Affairs, that study examines the economic and
    budgetary impact of legislative proposals to require federal agencies
    to analyze and compensate private property owners for the effects of
    regulatory action on private property.
        Papers, Memorandums, and Other Documents.--CBO also prepares
    analyses in shorter time frames either at Congressional request or in
    support of CBO's statutory work. Those analyses are usually issued as
    papers or memorandums. Of the 29 such analyses CBO published in 1998,
    20 were requested by House and Senate committees or leaders, and nine
    were undertaken in support of CBO's statutory work.
        For committees in the House, CBO presented an analysis of emergency
    spending under the Budget Enforcement Act (Committee on the Budget); a
    description of CBO's economic models, an analysis of CBO's outlay
    estimates for 1993-1997, and estimates of the revenue effects of
    changes in tax laws (Subcommittee on Legislative of the House Committee
    on Appropriations); an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of the
    Economic Growth Act of 1998, an examination of international data on
    antidumping activity, and an estimate of the amount of federal
    mandatory spending and tax benefits available to low-income working
    families not receiving cash welfare (Committee on Ways and Means); an
    examination of the factors that could affect the relative success of
    the Environmental Protection Agency's rule for limiting nitrogen
    oxides, and a primer on the subject of stranded costs associated with
    deregulation of the electric power industry (Committee on Commerce);
    and a study of the Department of Defense's Advanced Concept Technology
    Demonstration program (Committee on National Security).
        For committees in the Senate, CBO assessed the potential economic
    effects of federal spending on infrastructure and other investments,
    examined federal efforts in the area of global climate change, analyzed
    states' use of surplus funds, and studied two approaches considered
    during the 105th Congress for raising radio spectrum fees (Committee on
    the Budget); examined the impact of fees charged for use of automated
    teller machines (Committee on Banking); and studied housing choices
    available to military personnel and options for enhancing the
    Department of Defense's unmanned aerial vehicle programs (Committee on
    Armed Services).
        In addition, CBO undertook a variety of papers, memorandums, and
    other research related to the continuing review of Social Security.
    Those products included Social Security Privatization and the Annuities
    Market; Social Security and Private Saving: A Review of the Empirical
    Evidence; and, in response to a request from the House Ways and Means
    Committee, a letter analyzing Professor Martin Feldstein's proposal to
    set up private savings accounts financed by tax credits.
        A list of the publications CBO issued in 1998 appears in Appendix
    C.
    Cost Estimates
        One of CBO's most important responsibilities is to estimate the
    effect that proposed legislation would have on federal spending or
    revenues for the next five to 10 years. CBO staff members prepare all
    estimates of the impact of legislation on federal spending. However,
    for estimating the impact of legislation on revenues, including income,
    estate and gift, excise, and payroll taxes, CBO is required by the
    Congressional Budget Act to use exclusively the revenue estimates
    provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
        CBO is required to provide cost estimates for every bill reported
    by authorizing committees in both the House and the Senate. The office
    also prepares cost estimates at a committee's request for use in the
    early stages of drafting bills, for subcommittee and full committee
    markups, for floor amendments, and for conference agreements. In
    addition, to the extent that resources permit, CBO provides cost
    estimates for legislative proposals at the request of individual
    Members. In all, CBO prepared 678 federal cost estimates during
    calendar year 1998, along with many more informal estimates for
    proposals or options being considered by the Congress.
        Several pieces of major legislation accounted for much of CBO's
    work on cost estimates in 1998. Enacted legislation included the
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Internal Revenue
    Service Restructuring and Reform Act, the Child Support Performance and
    Incentive Act, the Higher Education Amendments, the Strom Thurmond
    National Defense Authorization Act, and the Omnibus Consolidated and
    Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. In addition, CBO provided
    numerous cost estimates for legislation that was not enacted, such as
    the proposed tobacco settlement and patients' rights legislation.
        CBO also provided the appropriations committees with estimates of
    outlays for all appropriation bills. The numbers contained in
    appropriation bills usually represent budget authority, and it is
    necessary to estimate the resulting outlays to determine whether the
    bills conform to committee allocations under the Congressional Budget
    Act as enforced by the budget committees. In addition, to assist the
    budget committees, CBO staff members frequently produce scorekeeping
    tabulations of Congressional actions on appropriations and other
    legislation affecting the federal budget.
    Federal Mandates Cost Estimates
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 established new procedures
    designed to ensure that the Congress fully considers the potential
    effects of unfunded federal mandates before imposing them on state,
    local, and tribal governments or the private sector. CBO is required to
    provide statements to authorizing committees about whether reported
    bills contain mandates and, if so, to estimate their costs. Those new
    procedures went into effect at the beginning of 1996.
        In 1998, CBO reviewed more than 500 reported bills and other
    legislative proposals for intergovernmental and private-sector
    mandates. Of the proposals analyzed, 64 contained intergovernmental
    mandates and 75 included private-sector mandates. Six of the
    intergovernmental and 18 of the private-sector mandates had costs
    exceeding the thresholds established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
    Act.
    Testimony
        The CBO Director and other staff members testified before
    Congressional committees 14 times during 1998, addressing a diverse
    array of topics. Nine of those appearances were before House
    committees, and five were before Senate committees. The Director also
    testified before the President's Commission to Study Capital Budgeting.
        The Director of CBO testified before Congressional committees four
    times. In January, she appeared before the Senate Committee on the
    Budget to discuss the economic and budget outlook. In February, she
    testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means on marriage and
    the federal income tax, and before the House Committee on the Budget on
    the economic and budget outlook. In March, she testified before the
    Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the House Committee
    on Rules on the Line Item Veto Act after one year.
        The Deputy Director of CBO testified on three occasions. In
    February, he testified before the Senate Committee on the Budget and in
    June before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs about the
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In June, he appeared before the Task
    Force on Budget Process of the House Committee on the Budget to discuss
    budgeting for emergency spending.
        Other CBO staff testified on seven occasions before House and
    Senate committees. The issues they addressed were retail activities at
    military bases, CBO's budget projections and baselines, budgeting for
    federal insurance programs, the domestic costs of foreign sanctions,
    how states budget and plan for emergencies, automated teller machines,
    and the Work Incentives Improvement Act (S. 1858).
        A list of the Congressional testimony that CBO delivered in 1998
    appears in Appendix D.
    Public Information Activities
        CBO continued to manage a diverse array of public information
    activities in response to requests for CBO analyses and data that are
    in the public sphere. The office receives dozens of queries daily from
    Congressional staff, journalists, students, researchers, and the
    general public. CBO provides its publications to an extensive audience,
    mostly in the United States but also in foreign nations.
        In addition, CBO staff meet with visiting delegations from other
    nations that wish to learn more about the Congress and the budget
    process. Those visits are arranged by a variety of groups that promote
    international communication and understanding. In 1998, CBO hosted more
    than 40 such delegations from Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
    Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Panama, Portugal, Russia, South Africa,
    Spain, Ukraine, and other nations.
        To better serve this diverse audience and convey a more accurate
    view of CBO's activities and the budget process, CBO had its general
    information publication, Responsibilities and Organization of the
    Congressional Budget Office, translated into Spanish, Russian, and
    French.
    www.cbo.gov
        In 1998, CBO continued to develop its World Wide Web site
    (www.cbo.gov), where all new CBO reports, studies, papers, memorandums,
    testimonies, federal bill cost estimates, and other documents are
    available in several formats. CBO's Monthly Budget Review is updated
    each month and is posted on the Web site as soon as it is available to
    the public. In October, CBO posted its 1,000th document. The Web site
    also includes a list of the publications that CBO has issued since
    1975.
        Work on the Web site has been closely coordinated with the
    development of the Legislative Information System to ensure that the
    site is technically compatible with that system. CBO has recently
    improved the cost estimates section to incorporate requests for
    specific information from the staffs of the budget committees. The
    office will continue to work with the Congress, and especially budget
    committee staffs, to ensure that CBO's Web site is as responsive as it
    can be to their informational needs.
        Since it came on-line in September 1997, the CBO Web site has
    recorded almost five million hits from a diverse audience of users
    including Congressional staff, other government agencies, news
    agencies, researchers, and students. More than 850,000 pages have been
    reviewed or downloaded by site visitors from 98 countries. Almost
    10,000 requests for information are received each day.
        CBO also made substantial progress in processing its official
    documents in accord with the requirements of the National Archives and
    Records Administration. Those documents range from official
    correspondence and personnel files to the full gamut of CBO reports,
    studies, papers, memorandums, and other products. Within the past year,
    CBO committed to permanent or temporary storage or destroyed
    approximately 20 percent of its file documents. CBO anticipates
    continued progress in 1999, fulfilling the legal mandate to preserve
    records deemed important to the government and the public.
                               work plan for 1999
        The Congressional Budget Office expects to publish its series of
    annual reports to the budget committees on a typical schedule in 1999.
    The annual report on the economic and budget outlook, covering fiscal
    years 2000-2009, will be released in late January. The Director will
    testify on that report before the Senate Committee on the Budget. CBO's
    annual report on unauthorized appropriations and expiring
    authorizations was issued in early January.
        In March, CBO will release its analysis of the President's
    budgetary proposals for fiscal year 2000. Also in March, CBO will
    publish Maintaining Budgetary Discipline: Spending and Revenue Options,
    which identifies options that the Congress may find useful for dealing
    with the procedural budgetary restraints--including the caps on
    discretionary spending and the pay-as-you-go procedures that apply to
    direct spending and revenues--that remain in effect until 2002.
        CBO expects to publish about the same number of studies, papers,
    and memorandums in 1999. The issues addressed in those analyses include
    proposed Social Security reforms, market-based student loans, national
    defense, infrastructure development, environmental issues, auctions
    relating to the shift to digital television, and a possible change in
    Puerto Rico's status.
        CBO will not publish a 1999 edition of Long-Term Budgetary
    Pressures and Policy Options. The May 1998 publication addresses many
    vital questions related to Social Security, Medicare, and other
    entitlement programs and will continue to provide a useful framework
    for the debate about long-term policy options for those programs.
    However, an update of CBO's longer-term budgetary projections will be
    included in The Economic and Budget Outlook to be issued this month.
        In 1999, CBO will continue to provide cost estimates for
    legislation, federal mandates cost estimates, and Congressional
    testimony as requested. The office will also continue to process
    records for the National Archives and conduct public information
    activities.
        A complete list of CBO projects scheduled for 1999 appears in
    Appendix E.
                           budget and staff resources
        The Congressional Budget Office's 1999 appropriation is $25.7
    million, an increase of 3.4 percent over its 1998 appropriation of
    $24.8 million. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation provides funding for
    232 full-time-equivalent staff positions, the same level as for fiscal
    year 1998. Most of CBO's appropriation is for staff compensation and
    related personnel costs. For fiscal year 1999, CBO budgeted $21.8
    million for personnel costs; $2.2 million for computer services and
    equipment, data acquisition, and development of computer models; and
    $1.7 million for various administrative expenses.
        The share of CBO's budget allocated for personnel costs continues
    to rise. Personnel expenses have grown to 85 percent of CBO's budget,
    up from 70 percent in 1988, even though the size of CBO's staff has not
    changed significantly over that period. In contrast, the share of
    computer costs has fallen sharply, from 21 percent of total expenses in
    1988 to 8 percent in 1999.
        For fiscal year 2000, CBO is requesting an appropriation of $26.8
    million, an increase of $1.2 million (4.5 percent) over its 1999
    budget. The request fully funds 232 full-time-equivalent positions, the
    same as this year; the higher compensation costs require an increase of
    6 percent in spending for personnel. The 6 percent increase is
    partially offset by reductions in spending for automated data
    processing and computer systems in order to limit the requested
    increase to 4.5 percent.
                                     ______

        Appendix A.--CBO's Policies for Preparing and Distributing Its
                             Estimates and Analyses
        The mission of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is to provide
    the Congress with the objective, timely, nonpartisan analysis needed
    for economic and budget decisions and the information and estimates
    required for the Congressional budget process. This document describes
    the policies and procedures that CBO follows as it prepares and
    distributes budget estimates and other analytic work for the Congress.
    CBO's Statutory Responsibilities
        The basic statute setting forth the duties and functions of the
    Congressional Budget Office is title II of the Congressional Budget Act
    of 1974. Additional responsibilities for budget estimates are contained
    in titles III and IV of that act. Subsequent legislation has affected
    those responsibilities and has added further requirements for specific
    analyses.
        According to title II of the Budget Act, CBO's primary duty is to
    provide budget-related information to all committees of both Houses,
    with priority given first to the information needs of the Committees on
    the Budget and second to the information needs of the Committees on
    Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Finance. With respect to individual
    Members, the only CBO duty stipulated in the act is to provide
    information compiled for committees and additional related information
    that may be requested.
        Title II also requires CBO to prepare several specific reports to
    the Committees on the Budget each year, including periodic assessments
    of the economic and budget outlook, and to conduct continuing studies
    on budgetary matters.
        Titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act specify
    additional duties for CBO to carry out in reviewing bills or joint
    resolutions reported from committees of either House. Title III covers
    all bills or joint resolutions that provide new budget or spending
    authority, such as appropriation bills, or that provide an increase or
    decrease in revenues. Title IV covers all bills and joint resolutions
    other than appropriation bills and private relief bills. Under those
    titles, CBO must prepare estimates of new budget authority, outlays, or
    revenues provided by the bills or joint resolutions, or of the costs
    that the government would incur in carrying out the provisions of the
    proposed legislation. The CBO cost estimates are to be included in the
    reports accompanying such bills or resolutions if they are submitted to
    the committees before the reports are filed.
        For estimating the impact on revenues of legislation involving
    income, estate and gift, excise, and payroll taxes, the Congressional
    Budget Act directs CBO to use exclusively the revenue estimates of the
    Joint Committee on Taxation.
        The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the
    Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of
    1987, and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 assign further duties to
    the Congressional Budget Office, such as providing budget estimates for
    the purpose of budget control. That function includes preparing the
    various sequestration reports to the Congress and the Office of
    Management and Budget. The Budget Enforcement Act also requires CBO to
    estimate changes in direct spending and revenues for private relief
    legislation as well as for public bills or joint resolutions.
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires CBO to prepare
    estimates of the direct costs of all federal mandates that are
    contained in legislation reported by any authorizing committee in
    either House and that affect state, local, and tribal governments or
    the private sector. The act also authorizes CBO to prepare analyses and
    studies of the budgetary or financial impact of proposed legislation
    that may significantly affect state and local governments or the
    private sector, to the extent practicable, at the request of any
    committee.
        From time to time, statutes have directed CBO to prepare analytic
    reports on specific subjects. Such reports have included the treatment
    of administrative costs under credit reform accounting, the financial
    risks posed by government-sponsored enterprises, and the desirability
    and feasibility of privatizing the Federal National Mortgage
    Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
    How Work on CBO's Estimates and Analyses Is Initiated
        The Congressional Budget Office strives to provide federal budget
    and mandate cost estimates for all bills other than appropriation bills
    when they are reported by a full committee of either House. Committee
    staff should notify CBO when bills are about to be ordered reported and
    when cost estimates are needed.
        CBO also prepares cost estimates for proposals at other stages of
    the legislative process at the request of a committee of jurisdiction,
    a budget committee, or the Congressional leadership. For example, CBO
    may prepare cost estimates for a series of bills to be considered by a
    subcommittee, including draft bills not yet introduced, or for
    amendments to be considered during committee markups. Similarly, it may
    prepare cost estimates for floor amendments and for bills that pass one
    or both Houses.
        For appropriation bills, CBO provides estimates of outlays that
    would result from the provision of budget authority. CBO also provides
    the budget and appropriation committees with frequent tabulations of
    Congressional action on both spending and revenue bills so that the
    Congress can know whether it is acting within the limits set by the
    annual budget resolution.
        In addition to statutory reports, or analyses done to directly
    support CBO's statutory work, the office undertakes a number of other
    analyses each year, although only at the request of the Chairman or
    Ranking Minority Member of the relevant committee or subcommittee or
    the Congressional leadership. Also, as time permits, CBO will honor
    requests of individual Members for cost information or other analysis
    of legislative proposals, but it must give priority to committee
    requests.
        By way of definition, a committee request consists of a written or
    oral request by the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of a committee
    or subcommittee. CBO asks that requests from individual Members be made
    in writing.
    How CBO Consults with Committees and Other Requesters of Estimates and
            Analyses
        When undertaking a cost estimate or an analysis supporting such an
    estimate, CBO analysts contact the staff of the committee of
    jurisdiction and, when applicable, the staffs of the Member sponsoring
    the proposal and the Member requesting the estimate to gather
    background information and discuss the schedule for completing the
    estimate. Budget and mandate cost estimates are based on the text of
    the proposed legislation. CBO analysts consult with the staff of the
    committee of jurisdiction (for a reported bill) or the sponsoring
    Member (for an introduced bill or amendment) when questions of
    interpretation arise, but they draw their own conclusions on an
    impartial and objective basis.
        CBO analysts contact the appropriate staff members if a forthcoming
    CBO estimate shows direct spending costs, mandates that exceed the
    legislative thresholds, or other significant findings. CBO, however,
    does not make judgments about the application of parliamentary points
    of order. After CBO cost estimates have been transmitted, they may be
    revised to correct errors or to incorporate new or updated information.
        When undertaking requested analyses of legislative proposals or
    issues, CBO staff members consult with the requester's staff to reach
    an understanding of the scope and nature of the work to be done. CBO
    analysts draw their own conclusions on an impartial and objective
    basis, as they do when preparing cost estimates. When appropriate, CBO
    staff inform other relevant committees of requests for analytic work
    after advising the requester's staff. As a final step in the
    consultation process, CBO informs the requester's staff of the results
    of the analysis before it releases the material.
    Sources of Information and Peer Review Practices
        In preparing its budget estimates and analyses, CBO uses the rich
    data sources available from the government's statistical agencies.
    Those sources include the national income and product accounts, the
    census of manufacturers, the Statistics of Income, the Current
    Population Survey, and various national health surveys. CBO also uses
    information provided by relevant government agencies and industry
    groups to meet specific needs.
        CBO employs standard methods of economic analysis and closely
    follows theoretical and empirical developments in the professional
    literature for economics and related disciplines. In addition, CBO
    frequently calls on outside experts for advice on specific analytic
    matters, such as the outlook for agriculture production, spending
    projections for Medicare and Medicaid, and business prospects in the
    telecommunications industry. For its economic forecasts and
    assumptions, CBO draws on the advice of a distinguished panel of
    advisers that meets twice a year.
        All CBO estimates and analytic products are reviewed internally for
    technical competence, accuracy of data, and clarity of exposition. CBO
    studies are also reviewed by experts outside CBO, and the preface to
    each study cites the many contributors who helped shape the final
    product. Although outside experts and advisers provide considerable
    assistance, CBO is solely responsible for the accuracy of the estimates
    and analyses that it produces. In keeping with its nonpartisan status
    and its mandate to provide objective analysis, CBO does not make policy
    recommendations in any of its analyses.
    CBO's Responsibility for Disclosing and Explaining Its Critical
            Assumptions and Methodologies
        Both the Congressional Budget Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform
    Act direct CBO to disclose the basis for each budget and mandate cost
    estimate. CBO interprets that directive to include the disclosure of
    the critical assumptions and analytic methodologies used to prepare the
    estimate. All written cost estimates include explanations of the basis
    of the estimate, and CBO supplies further details on request. Similar
    explanations of critical assumptions and methodologies are given in
    CBO's analytic products. It is CBO's policy that its estimates and
    analyses be clearly presented and easy to understand.
    How CBO Transmits Its Work to the Congress
        CBO seeks to ensure that key parties in the Congress who are
    involved in any particular issue have equal access to its analytic
    work. Insofar as possible, CBO delivers its cost estimates and analyses
    to all interested parties simultaneously. Requests for confidentiality
    are honored only for cost estimates for legislative proposals that have
    not been made public.
        The Director of the Congressional Budget Office transmits by letter
    all formal budget and mandate cost estimates of legislative proposals
    and all requested analyses. CBO sends its formal cost estimates for
    reported bills and estimates prepared at committee request to the
    Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the reporting or requesting
    committee. When the requester is a budget committee or individual
    Member, CBO sends a copy of its cost estimate simultaneously to the
    Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the committee of jurisdiction;
    for an introduced bill or amendment, a copy of the estimate is sent to
    the sponsor as well as the requester. Cost estimates of legislative
    proposals that have not been introduced as a bill or made public are
    transmitted only to the sponsoring Member or requesting committee
    unless CBO is directed otherwise.
        In contrast, informal cost estimates may be transmitted directly by
    CBO staff. Informal estimates are preliminary because they do not
    undergo the same review procedures required for formal estimates.
    How CBO Distributes Its Estimates and Analyses
        CBO makes its analytic work widely available to Members of Congress
    and their staffs as well as to the public. The Publications Office
    sends a copy of all CBO reports and studies to each Member. Copies of
    CBO papers, memorandums, and other analyses are available to Members
    and Congressional staff on request.
        The Publications Office also handles requests from the general
    public, other government agencies, and the press. Single copies of CBO
    reports, studies, papers, and memorandums are available at no charge.
    In addition, the Superintendent of Documents at the U.S. Government
    Printing Office carries many CBO reports and studies.
        In September 1997, CBO launched its World Wide Web site
    (www.cbo.gov). The site now includes publications, testimony, and cost
    estimates issued since then as well as many publications from previous
    years. As time and resources permit, CBO will continue to post older
    products that remain relevant and useful. An index of publications
    issued since CBO began operating in 1975, arranged chronologically and
    by subject, will be posted on the Web site.
        The documents on CBO's Web site are available in four formats:
    HTML, PDF, PostScript, and WordPerfect. The multiformat approach makes
    CBO's products accessible to a wide variety of users and for multiple
    purposes. Visitors can browse, search, download, and print documents
    that are on the Web. They can also subscribe to ListServer, a feature
    that enables them to be notified by E-mail when CBO issues a
    publication on a subject of interest to them.
                                     ______

                    Appendix B.--Panel of Economic Advisers
        Dr. Alan J. Auerbach, Robert D. Burch, Professor of Tax Policy and
    Public Finance, University of California.
        Dr. Martin N. Baily, McKinsey & Company.
        Dr. Jagdish Bhagwati, Arthur Lehman, Professor, Columbia
    University.
        Dr. Michael Boskin, Professor of Economics, Hoover Institute,
    Stanford University.
        Dr. Barry P. Bosworth, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution.
        Dr. Robert Dederick, Economic Consultant, The Northern Trust
    Company.
        Dr. Martin Feldstein, President, National Bureau of Economic
    Research.
        Dr. Robert J. Gordon, Professor of Economics, Northwestern
    University.
        Dr. Robert E. Hall, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford
    University.
        Dr. Marvin Kosters, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise
    Institute.
        Dr. Anne Krueger, Professor of Economics, Stanford University.
        Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, Professor of Economics, Harvard University.
        Dr. Allan Meltzer, University Professor, Graduate School for
    Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University.
        Dr. William D. Nordhaus, A. Whitney Griswold Professor, Yale
    University.
        Dr. Rudolph Penner, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute.
        Dr. James Poterba, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute
    of Technology.
        Dr. Robert Reischauer, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution.
        Dr. Sherwin Rosen, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago.
        Dr. Joel Slemrod, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan.
        Dr. John Taylor, Professor of Economics, Stanford University.
        Dr. James Tobin, Yale University, Cowles Foundation for Research in
    Economics.
                                     ______

                    Appendix C.--Projects Completed in 1998
                           mandated and other reports
        The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1999-2008 (January
    1998)--Volume one in CBO's series of legislatively mandated reports to
    the Congress on the economy and the budget, which includes CBO's
    current economic and budget projections.
        Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations (January
    1998)--An annual report to the Congress listing, by committee of
    jurisdiction, all unauthorized appropriations for the current fiscal
    year and authorizations scheduled to expire before the next fiscal
    year.
        Sequestration Preview Report for Fiscal Year 1999 (January 1998)--
    Sets advisory limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays,
    and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as
    any required sequestration.
        An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year
    1999 (March 1998)--Estimates the effects of the President's budgetary
    proposals using CBO's economic and technical assumptions. Requested by
    the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
        Long-Term Budgetary Pressures and Policy Options (May 1998)--Shows
    the long-term economic and budgetary effects of coming demographic
    changes and discusses policy options in defense, taxation, public
    investment, Medicare, and Social Security.
        Review of The Report of the Department of Defense on Base
    Realignment and Closure (July 1998)--An in-depth analysis of
    anticipated cost savings associated with closing and consolidation of
    several military bases that the department deems no longer essential to
    national defense.
        Sequestration Update Report for Fiscal Year 1999 (August 1998)--
    Sets advisory limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays,
    and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as
    any required sequestration.
        The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update (August 1998)--Updates
    volume one of CBO's annual report to the Congress on the economic and
    budget outlook.
        Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 1999 (October 1998)--
    Sets advisory limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays,
    and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as
    any required sequestration.
                                    studies
        Innovative Financing of Highways: An Analysis of Proposals (January
    1998)--Reviews new techniques used at the state and local levels to
    finance transportation systems, considers their applicability at the
    federal level, and looks at the budgetary treatment of such financing
    methods. Requested by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
    Works.
        How Increased Competition from Generic Drugs Has Affected Prices
    and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry (July 1998)--Examines the
    effects of federal regulations and rules on pricing in the
    pharmaceutical industry. Requested by the Senate Committee on the
    Budget.
        Regulatory Takings and Proposals for Change (December 1998)--
    Examines the economic and budgetary impact of legislative proposals to
    require federal agencies to analyze and compensate private property
    owners for the effects of regulatory action on private property.
    Requested by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
                                     papers
        Federal Subsidies of Advanced Telecommunications for Schools,
    Libraries, and Health Care Providers (January 1998)--Estimates federal
    revenues and outlays and outlines CBO's estimating methodology for
    universal service federal mandates. Prepared in support of CBO's
    statutory work.
        An Assessment of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1997 (February
    1998)--Reviews the activities of CBO during 1997 in carrying out the
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Prepared in support of CBO's
    statutory work.
        Social Security Privatization and the Annuities Market (February
    1998)--Looks at possible economic effects of privatizing Social
    Security. Prepared in support of CBO's statutory work.
        The Proposed Tobacco Settlement: Issues from a Federal Perspective
    (April 1998)--Analyzes features of legislative proposals that would
    implement and potentially modify the 1997 agreement between industry
    and states' attorneys general. Requested by the Assistant Majority
    Leader of the Senate.
        Antidumping Action in the United States and Around the World: An
    Analysis of International Data (June 1998)--Analyzes use of antidumping
    actions by the United States and foreign countries. Requested by the
    House Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Economic Effects of Federal Spending on Infrastructure and
    Other Investments (June 1998)--Reviews available data on the economic
    value of federal investments in infrastructure, education, training,
    and research and development. Requested by the Senate Committee on the
    Budget.
        Factors Affecting the Relative Success of EPA's Nox Cap-and-Trade
    Program (June 1998)--Analyzes the effects of limiting oxide emissions
    in 22 states and the District of Columbia. Requested by the House
    Committee on Commerce.
        Competition in ATM Markets: Are ATMs Money Machines? (July 1998)--
    Analyzes the market for automated teller machines and related policy
    issues. Requested by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and
    Urban Affairs.
        Options for Enhancing the Department of Defense's Unmanned Aerial
    Vehicle Programs (September 1998)--Examines issues related to the
    Department of Defense's acquisition program for pilotless aircraft.
    Requested by the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
        Electric Utilities: Deregulation and Stranded Costs (October
    1998)--Examines the effects of removing barriers to interstate commerce
    in retail electricity markets. Requested by the House Committee on
    Commerce.
        Housing Prices, Housing Choices, and Military Housing Allowances
    (October 1998)--Compares military expense-based and price-based housing
    allowance systems. Requested by the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
        Description of Economic Models (November 1998)--Provides a detailed
    description of the various models used by CBO in preparing its economic
    forecasts and analyses. Requested in the report accompanying the House
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.
        Projecting Federal Tax Revenues and the Effect of Changes in Tax
    Law (December 1998)--Provides estimates of the revenue effects of
    several changes to the tax law beginning in 1978, including separate
    estimates of the revenue effects of changes in the tax rate on capital
    gains. Requested in the report accompanying the House Legislative
    Branch Appropriations Bill.
                                  memorandums
        Proposals to Subsidize Health Insurance for the Unemployed (January
    1998)--Analyzes policies designed to assist purchase of health
    insurance for unemployed people for a temporary period. Requested by
    the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
        Expanding Health Insurance Coverage for Children Under Title XXI of
    the Social Security Act (February 1998)--Provides preliminary
    information about how the states are responding to the State Children's
    Health Insurance Program. Prepared in support of CBO's statutory work.
        Changing the Treatment of Software Expenditures in the National
    Accounts (April 1998)--Examines the impact of changing the treatment of
    software from an intermediate good to an investment good. Prepared in
    support of CBO's statutory work.
        The Line Item Veto After One Year (April 1998)--Analyzes the Line
    Item Veto Act during its first year of operation. Prepared in support
    of CBO's statutory work.
        Estimates of Federal Tax Liabilities for Individuals and Families
    by Income Category and Family Type for 1995 and 1999 (May 1998)--
    Continues CBO's analysis of the distribution of federal taxes.
    Requested by the Senate and House Committees on the Budget, the Senate
    Committee on Finance, and the House Committee on Ways and Means.
        Social Security and Private Saving: A Review of the Empirical
    Evidence (July 1998)--Reviews the evidence from a number of studies on
    the impact of Social Security on saving. Prepared in support of CBO's
    statutory work.
        An Analysis of the Potential Macroeconomic Effects of the Economic
    Growth Act of 1998 (August 1998)--Analyzes the macroeconomic effects of
    H.R. 4125, the Economic Growth Act of 1998. Requested by the House
    Committee on Ways and Means.
        Climate Change and the Federal Budget (August 1998)--Examines the
    budgetary and economic implications of efforts to reduce greenhouse
    emissions to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2010. Requested by the Senate
    Committee on the Budget.
        Comparing Federal Employee Benefits with Those in the Private
    Sector (August 1998)--Compares benefits earned by federal employees
    with those earned by employees in the private sector. Prepared in
    support of CBO's statutory work.
        The Department of Defense's Advanced Concept Technology
    Demonstrations (September 1998)--Analyzes the amount of resources the
    Department of Defense has devoted to ACTDs and examines the early
    evidence of benefits and risks. Requested by the House Committee on
    National Security.
        Policy Changes Affecting Mandatory Spending for Low-Income Families
    Not Receiving Cash Welfare (September 1998)--Discusses policy changes
    affecting federal funding for low-income families. Requested by the
    House Committee on Ways and Means.
        Measurement of Employee Benefits in the National Accounts
    (September 1998)--Examines the current methods of estimating employee
    benefits and possible sources of inaccuracy. Prepared in support of
    CBO's statutory work.
        An Analysis of CBO's Outlay Estimates for Appropriation Bills,
    Fiscal Years 1993-1997 (October 1998)--Provides a comparison of CBO's
    outlay estimates for discretionary appropriations with the actual
    outcomes. Requested in the report accompanying the House Legislative
    Branch Appropriations Bill.
        States' Use of Surplus Funds (November 1998)--Provides a brief
    overview of the economic and fiscal situation of the states and
    discusses implications for the federal budget. Requested by the Senate
    Committee on the Budget.
        Two Approaches for Increasing Spectrum Fees (November 1998)--
    Analyzes options for using fees to manage radio spectrum for licenses
    that are not sold at auction. Requested by the Senate Committee on the
    Budget.
        Emergency Spending Under the Budget Enforcement Act (December
    1998)--Analyzes whether emergency spending is being used increasingly
    as a means of circumventing constraints of the budget process rather
    than as a response to unanticipated needs. Requested by the House
    Committee on the Budget.
                                other documents
        Letter and attachment to the Honorable Thomas A. Daschle, Senate
    Democratic Leader, Estimated Budgetary Impacts of Alternative Levels of
    Strategic Forces (March 1998).
        Letter and attachment to the Honorable Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
    Senate Committee on the Budget, The Profitability of Federally
    Guaranteed Student Loans (March 1998).
        Changes in Federal Civilian Employment: An Update (April 1998),
    updates a 1996 memorandum on the same subject.
        Letter and attachment to the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking
    Minority Member, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Using
    Auctions to Reduce the Cost of the Federal Family Education Loan
    Program (July 1998).
        Letter to the Honorable Curt Weldon, Chairman, Subcommittee on
    Military Research and Development, House Committee on National
    Security, regarding the estimated cost of three tactical aircraft
    programs to reflect changes resulting from the 1997 Quadrennial Defense
    Review (July 1998).
        Letter and attachment to the Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman, House
    Committee on Ways and Means, Analysis of a Proposal by Professor Martin
    Feldstein to Set Up Personal Retirement Accounts Financed by Tax
    Credits (August 1998).
        Estimated Budgetary Effects of Alternatives for Producing Tritium
    (August 1998).
        Letter and attachment to the Honorable Thomas A. Daschle, Senate
    Democratic Leader, Improving Russia's Access to Early-Warning
    Information: Preliminary Results (September 1998).
                                     ______

                                  Appendix D.

                                TESTIMONY IN 1998
    January 28......................  Senate Committee    The Economic and
                                       on the Budget,      Budget Outlook:
                                       June O'Neill,       Fiscal Years 1999-
                                       Director.           2008.
    February 4......................  House Committee on  Marriage and the
                                       Ways and Means,     federal income
                                       June O'Neill,       tax.
                                       Director.
    February 5......................  House Committee on  The Economic and
                                       the Budget, June    Budget Outlook:
                                       O'Neill, Director.  Fiscal Years 1999-
                                                           2008.
    February 12.....................  Senate Committee    The Unfunded
                                       on the Budget,      Mandates Reform
                                       James Blum,         Act.
                                       Deputy Director.
    March 3.........................  Special Oversight   Retail activities
                                       Panel on Morale,    on military
                                       Welfare, and        bases.
                                       Recreation, House
                                       Committee on
                                       National
                                       Security, Deborah
                                       Clay-Mendez,
                                       National Security
                                       Division.
    March 11........................  Subcommittee on     The Line Item Veto
                                       Legislative and     Act after one
                                       Budget Process,     year.
                                       House Committee
                                       on Rules, June
                                       O'Neill, Director.
    April 1.........................  Task Force on       Budget projections
                                       Budget Process,     and baselines.
                                       House Committee
                                       on the Budget,
                                       Paul Van de
                                       Water, Assistant
                                       Director, Budget
                                       Analysis Division.
    April 23........................  Task Force on       Budgeting for
                                       Budget Process,     insurance
                                       House Committee     programs.
                                       on the Budget,
                                       Marvin Phaup,
                                       Special Studies
                                       Division.
    June 3..........................  Senate Committee    The Unfunded
                                       on Governmental     Mandates Reform
                                       Affairs, James      Act.
                                       Blum, Deputy
                                       Director.
    June 3                            House Committee on  The domestic costs
                                       International       of sanctions on
                                       Relations, Jan      foreign commerce.
                                       Acton, Assistant
                                       Director, Natural
                                       Resources and
                                       Commerce Division.
    June 23.........................  Task Force on       Budgeting for
                                       Budget Process,     emergency
                                       House Committee     spending.
                                       on the Budget,
                                       James Blum,
                                       Deputy Director.
    June 23.........................  Task Force on       How states plan
                                       Budget Process,     and budget for
                                       House Committee     emergencies.
                                       on the Budget,
                                       Theresa Gullo,
                                       Budget Analysis
                                       Division.
    July 15.........................  Senate Committee    Automated teller
                                       on Banking,         machines.
                                       Housing, and
                                       Urban Affairs,
                                       Jan Acton,
                                       Assistant
                                       Director, Natural
                                       Resources and
                                       Commerce Division.
    July 29.........................  Subcommittee on     The Work
                                       Social Security     Incentives
                                       and Family          Improvement Act--
                                       Policy, Senate      S. 1858.
                                       Committee on
                                       Finance, Paul Van
                                       de Water,
                                       Assistant
                                       Director, Budget
                                       Analysis Division.

                                     ______

                     Appendix E.--Ongoing Projects in 1999
                           mandated and other reports
        The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 2000-2009 (January
    1999)--Volume one in CBO's series of legislatively mandated reports to
    the Congress on the economy and the budget, which includes CBO's
    current economic and budget projections.
        Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations (January
    1999)--An annual report to the Congress listing, by committee of
    jurisdiction, all unauthorized appropriations for the current fiscal
    year and authorizations scheduled to expire before the next fiscal
    year.
        Sequestration Preview Report for Fiscal Year 2000 (January 1999)--
    Sets advisory limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays,
    and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as
    any required sequestration.
        Maintaining Budgetary Discipline: Spending and Revenue Options
    (March 1999)--Volume two of CBO's annual report to the Congress.
    Identifies some 250 specific options for reducing spending or
    increasing federal revenues that could be used for complying with
    procedural budgetary restraints affecting annual discretionary
    appropriations and changes in permanent spending and revenue laws.
        An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year
    2000 (March 1999)--Estimates the effects of the President's budgetary
    proposals using CBO's economic and technical assumptions. Requested by
    the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
        Sequestration Update Report for Fiscal Year 1999 (August 1999)--
    Sets advisory limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays,
    and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as
    any required sequestration.
        The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update (Summer 1999)--Updates
    volume one of CBO's annual report to the Congress on the economic and
    budget outlook.
        Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2000 (October 1999)--
    Sets advisory limits for discretionary budget authority and outlays,
    and estimates budgetary effects of pay-as-you-go legislation as well as
    any required sequestration.
                             congressional requests
        Economic and Budgetary Effects of a Change in Puerto Rico's
    Status--Looks at the macroeconomic effects of Puerto Rican statehood
    and independence compared with current law. Prepared by the Budget
    Analysis and Macroeconomic Analysis Divisions at the request of the
    House Committee on Resources.
        Economic and Budgetary Issues Raised by the Advisory Council's
    Proposals for Social Security Reform--Examines the macroeconomic,
    budgetary, and distributional effects of the Advisory Council's three
    proposals to reform Social Security. Prepared by the Budget Analysis,
    Macroeconomic Analysis, and Health and Human Resources Divisions at the
    request of the Senate Committee on Finance.
        Raising the Earliest Age for Social Security Benefits--Analyzes the
    impact of options for raising the earliest age at which workers would
    be eligible for Social Security retirement benefits. Prepared by the
    Health and Human Resources Division (HHRD) at the request of the House
    Committee on Ways and Means.
        Student Loans--Analyzes market-based options for reforming the
    federally guaranteed student loan program to ensure a reliable flow of
    capital to students and to target federal subsidies effectively.
    Prepared by HHRD and the Special Studies Division for the Senate
    Committee on the Budget.
        Women and Social Security Reform--Examines changes in spouse and
    survivor benefits under several Social Security reform plans and
    discusses the impact on women of other specific provisions in those
    plans. Prepared by HHRD at the request of the House Committee on Ways
    and Means.
        Projecting the Demand for Long-Term Care Services--Projects
    spending on long-term care services through 2040 and considers policies
    that could alter the demand for those services. Prepared by HHRD at the
    request of the House Committee on the Budget.
        Federal Programs Affecting the Supply and Demand for Health
    Services--Identifies and compares federally funded programs that affect
    the supply of and demand for health services among various groups in
    the population. Prepared by HHRD at the request of the House Committee
    on the Budget.
        Shifts in Financial Intermediation--Examines changes among
    financial intermediaries in their roles as agents between borrowers and
    lenders, providers of financial products, repositories for savings,
    sources of credit, and mediators of risk. Prepared by the Macroeconomic
    Analysis Division (Macro) for the House Committee on Banking and
    Financial Services. (The original request was made by the House
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.)
        The Economic Impact on the United States of Growth in the
    Developing World--Looks at how the U.S. economy is affected by growth
    in developing countries, with particular attention paid to trade and
    capital flows and wage rates in the United States. Prepared by Macro at
    the request of the House Committee on International Relations.
        A Review of the Literature on the Effects of Reducing Greenhouse
    Gases--Reviews the literature on the economic effects of reducing
    greenhouse gases. Prepared by Macro at the request of the Senate
    Committee on the Budget.
        Personal Bankruptcy--Looks at the impact of personal bankruptcy and
    bankruptcy laws on the efficiency of consumer credit markets. Prepared
    by Macro at the request of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
        Evaluation of S. 2313 and S. 1792--Estimates the macroeconomic
    effects of two proposals to reform the Social Security system. Prepared
    by Macro at the request of several Members of Congress.
        Evaluation of the Ball Plan--Estimates the macroeconomic effects of
    Ball's plan to reform the Social Security system. Prepared by Macro at
    the request of several Members of Congress.
        Foreign Experience with Government Spectrum Fees--Examines
    practices of selected foreign governments in charging governmental
    users of electromagnetic spectrum. Prepared by the Natural Resources
    and Commerce Division (NRCD) at the request of the Senate Committee on
    the Budget.
        The Use of International Trade Sanctions--Analyzes the costs of
    sanctions to the U.S. economy. Prepared by NRCD at the request of the
    House Committee on International Relations.
        Economic Significance of the Current-Account Trade Deficit--
    Examines the causes of the trade deficit, its effects on the economy,
    and what, if anything, might be done to reduce or eliminate it that
    would be beneficial rather than detrimental to the economy. Prepared by
    NRCD at the request of the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the
    Senate Committee on Finance.
        Auctions for Digital TV--Updates assumptions underlying forecasts
    of receipts from auctions made possible by the transition to digital
    TV; evaluates the technology, marketplace, and regulatory developments
    that could affect the amount and timing of spectrum to be available for
    auction. Prepared by NRCD for the House Committee on the Budget.
        Financing Options for Airports--Reviews financing options for
    airports that are part of the national plan of integrated airport
    systems but are not large or medium hubs as defined by the FAA; reviews
    how those airports met financial requirements and discusses the role
    that Airport Improvement Program grants play in helping them cover
    operating expenses and meet capital needs. Prepared by NRCD at the
    request of the House Committee on the Budget.
        What Does the Military Pay Gap Mean?--Updates the December 1995
    paper on military pay and the rewards for performance. Prepared by the
    National Security Division (NSD) at the request of the Senate Committee
    on Armed Services.
        Effects of Operations Other Than War on Military Readiness--
    Examines the impact on overall readiness of operations such as those in
    Somalia and Haiti and the financial burden such operations place on
    operation and maintenance accounts. Prepared by NSD at the request of
    the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
        The Force Structure of the Navy in the 21st Century--Evaluates
    several force structure options, emphasizing different roles for the
    Navy. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services.
        The Defense Budget--Analyzes decisions resulting from the
    Quadrennial Defense Review and their implications for future defense
    budgets. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Committee on the
    Budget.
        Efforts to Control Nuclear Proliferation in Russia--Examines
    several cooperative initiatives to control nuclear materials and
    technology and to enhance mutual security. Prepared by NSD at the
    request of the Senate Democratic Leader.
        Dealerting Nuclear Forces--Examines a wide variety of ways in which
    the United States and Russia might reduce the alert rates of their
    nuclear forces. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Democratic
    Leader.
        Transparency in Warhead Dismantlement--Examines options for the
    irreversible dismantlement of U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads.
    Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Democratic Leader.
        Options for Providing Medical Insurance Benefits to Military
    Beneficiaries--Reviews and analyzes proposals for making military
    beneficiaries eligible for the medical insurance choices provided
    through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Prepared by NSD
    at the request of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
        The Drawdown of the Military Officers Corps--Describes the tools
    used by the services between 1990 and 1996 to reduce the size of the
    officers corps and the effects of that drawdown on the distribution of
    officers by rank, year of service, and occupation. Prepared by NSD at
    the request of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
        Analysis of the Effects of Retirement System Changes on Retention--
    Examines retention profiles of enlisted personnel to identify the
    impact of the most recent change in the Military Retirement System.
    Prepared by NSD at the request of the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services.
        Enhancing National Security and Military Readiness--Examines the
    effects and costs of additions to the defense program proposed by the
    Joint Chiefs and others. Prepared by NSD at the request of the Chairman
    of the Senate Budget Committee.
        Budgeting for Federal Retirement Costs--Analyzes current and
    alternative means of budgeting for federal pensions with a view toward
    increasing control of costs and security of benefits. Prepared by the
    Special Studies Division (SSD) at the request of the House Committee on
    the Budget.
        Volatility in Discretionary Appropriations--Analyzes how much
    discretionary spending is volatile or unpredictable from year to year,
    which bears on the issue of biennial budgeting. Prepared by SSD at the
    request of the Senate Committee on the Budget.
        Federal Taxes Under Income Tax and Comprehensive Reform Proposals--
    Compares federal taxes under current law and various comprehensive tax
    reform options for different family income groups. Prepared by the Tax
    Analysis Division at the request of the Senate Committee on the Budget.
                                 other projects
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: A Review of 1998--Reviews the
    activities of CBO during 1998 in carrying out the Unfunded Mandates
    Reform Act of 1995. Prepared by the Budget Analysis Division and the
    Natural Resources and Commerce Division.
        Prepaying Medicare--Analyzes recent proposals to transform Medicare
    into a prepaid system, in which each age cohort contributes sufficient
    amounts during their working lives to fully finance their Medicare
    benefits. Prepared by HHRD.
        Delaying the Age of Medicare Eligibility and Offering an Early Buy-
    In--Examines the fiscal and budgetary implications of providing health
    insurance to people who retire before becoming eligible for Medicare.
    Prepared by HHRD.
        A Reassessment of Medicare's Graduate Medical Education Policies--
    Examines Medicare policies related to graduate medical education,
    including changes made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and
    considers options to modify those policies. Prepared by HHRD.
        Issues, Choices, and Macroeconomic Consequences of Privatizing
    Social Security--Provides a broad overview of the issues involved in
    moving from the current defined benefit, pay-as-you-go Social Security
    system to a defined contribution, funded system based on private
    accounts. Prepared by Macro.
        Fiscal Consolidations and Short-Term Growth--Analyzes fiscal
    consolidations and their implications for short-term growth in the
    overall economy. Prepared by Macro.
        Social Security Privatization and Administrative Costs--Analyzes
    the administrative costs of creating private retirement accounts.
    Prepared by Macro.
        Social Security Privatization: Experiences Abroad--Examines the
    experiences of other countries in privatizing their public pension
    systems. Prepared by Macro.
        Trends in Public Infrastructure--Looks at long-run returns to
    investment in public infrastructure; contains historical data on
    spending on capital maintenance by federal and state governments in
    major categories. Prepared by NRCD.
        Electric Utility Restructuring and Renewable Energy--Analyzes
    costs, efficiency implications, and distributional effects of a
    federally mandated renewable portfolio standard. Prepared by NRCD.
        Costs of Complying with New Animal Waste Regulations--Analyzes the
    costs to pork and poultry producers of new regulations intended to
    reduce the effects of animal agriculture on water quality. Prepared by
    NRCD.
        Federal Options for Encouraging the Private Market for Natural
    Disaster Insurance--Analyzes failures of the private market to provide
    adequate disaster insurance and examines options for federal support
    for reinsurance markets. Prepared by NRCD.
        Introduction to Probabilistic Scoring--Examines options for
    preparing bill cost estimates when costs are subject to asymmetric
    uncertainties. Prepared by NRCD and the Budget Analysis Division.
        Measuring the Foreign Exposure of U.S. Banks--Examines the measures
    and data used to track the foreign exposure of U.S. banks, undertaken
    in support of CBO's projections of the demands on the Bank Insurance
    Fund. Prepared by NRCD.
        The Privatization of Sallie Mae--Develops a framework for analyzing
    the privatization of government-sponsored enterprises and applies it to
    the privatization of Sallie Mae. Prepared by SSD.
        HUD's Affordable Housing Goals--Examines the effectiveness of HUD's
    affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Prepared by
    SSD.
        Budget Process Issues for 1999--Examines the major budget process
    issues that the Congress is likely to address in 1999, including
    emergency spending, biennial budgeting, and pay-as-you-go. Prepared by
    SSD.
        Comparing Federal and Private-Sector Compensation for Executives--
    Compares the pay and benefits for executives in the federal government
    with those for executives in private firms. Prepared by SSD.
        Federal Unfunded Liabilities--Provides present-value estimates of
    federal liabilities and commitments other than U.S. Treasury debt;
    discusses the meaning and usefulness of such estimates. Prepared by
    SSD.
        Budgetary Treatment of Coin and Currency--Explains how the public
    holding of coin and currency affects the budget; discusses disparate
    treatment in the budget. Prepared by SSD.
        Budgetary Treatment of Personal Retirement Accounts--Analyzes the
    budgetary treatment of Social Security reform proposals that would
    involve personal retirement accounts. Prepared by SSD.
        Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Investor-Owned Public Utilities--
    Analyzes the unique role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as
    private, for-profit lending institutions backed by implicit government
    guarantees. Prepared by SSD.
        Capital Budgeting--Provides an assessment of the report of the
    Capital Budgeting Commission, which is scheduled to be released in late
    February. Prepared by SSD.
        Budgeting for Federal Insurance--Analyzes alternative budgetary
    treatments to reduce contingent losses associated with federal
    insurance programs. Prepared by SSD.
        Capital Gains Distributions from Mutual Funds--Analyzes capital
    gains distributions from mutual funds. Prepared by the Tax Analysis
    Division (TAD).
        Using Environmentally Related Taxes to Reduce Income-Based Taxes--
    Looks at the concept of using environmentally related taxes to reduce
    income-based taxes. Prepared by TAD.
        Analysis of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997--Analyzes the impact of
    the Taxpayer Relief Act on the federal budget and economic growth.
    Prepared by TAD.
        Tax Subsidies for Environmental Infrastructure--Looks at the
    possible use of tax subsidies for environmental infrastructure.
    Prepared by TAD.

                              Reprogramming funds

        Senator Bennett. Thank you for your presentation.
        We have been joined by the chairman of the full committee.
    Good morning. This is the Congressional Budget Office, our
    final witness. Do you have any comment or statement? We would
    be happy to hear it.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I am happy to be here with you. I do
    have a request. We had quite a dialogue on the floor yesterday
    with the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and we have a
    considerable disagreement over the manner in which reprogrammed
    emergency funds should be treated from the point of view of
    scoring, and I would be very much appreciative if we could
    arrange to get together sometime today or tomorrow and discuss
    the matter with Phil.
        I have taken the position that once we have emergency
    funds, they are outside the budget. If we reprogram those
    funds, we do not need to rescore them. You all have rescored
    them, to the great disadvantage of this committee, and it has
    led to the adoption of an amendment which will have the effect
    of cutting appropriated funds from the omnibus bill by 20
    percent to offset the emergency funds that are in that bill,
    this bill we have just passed.
        We have adopted it last night, but it will be passed when
    the House finishes its version of the supplemental
    appropriations bill today. I think we should find some way to
    reconcile these differences, because the Finance Committee's
    position will mean that we have no ability to reprogram
    emergency funds.
        When we reprogram funds that are within the budget I know
    they have a different scoring and outlay impact. But, I have
    taken the position that funds that are outside the budget to
    start with because they have got an emergency designation
    should not lead to your scoring of those funds as outlays when
    we reprogram them for a new emergency within the same year. I
    would appreciate it if we could find some time to discuss that,
    and discuss its impact on the overall emergency process.
        We face a real question. We must finish this bill by
    tomorrow night.
        Mr. Crippen. We are available at your request any time
    today, tomorrow, tonight. Do you want to do it with Senator
    Gramm at the same time?
        Senator Stevens. Yes. Senator Gramm and I agreed we would
    meet with you jointly and see if we could explore this. Each
    one of us will have staff there.
        We also have a request in to you now for sort of a snapshot
    of what we did yesterday, so we can see before we can get to
    this meeting, how far apart we are, and what the impact is of
    the two amendments that Senator Gramm presented.
        It was my understanding that they were drafted by your
    people, is that right?
        Mr. Crippen. I do not know, Mr. Chairman. This is the first
    I have heard of the issue in any thorough way, and I am not
    aware that they did. I do not know that they did not, either.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Cortese is here. He would be pleased
    to brief your staff on what we are trying to do, but I would
    like to do it today or tomorrow. I do not know what your hours
    are going to be, but our hours are extremely long. We have 30,
    35 hours to be in session between now and noon on Friday.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Crippen. We will do it.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I have no additional
    questions. Well, let me ask this one. In the last Congress the
    Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act was amended to
    make CBO's primary duty its response to the Budget Committees
    with its secondary duty to Appropriations, Ways and Means, and
    Finance, and this is kind of piggy-backing on what Senator
    Stevens had to say, but I know you are brand-new there, but do
    you have any sense that this change has had any impact on CBO's
    service to the Appropriations Committee?
        Mr. Crippen. Certainly not that I am aware of. As you say,
    we are both new, but I do not know where that language came
    from. I could guess, but I will not. It certainly did not come
    from us, and the original statute, as you know, specified the
    order of the committees; but the Budget Committee, the
    Appropriations Committee, and the Finance Committee were the
    three listed for the Senate in the statute.
        We try very hard to do a decent job of responding quickly.
    The only place where some slack is taken up from time to time
    is for requests from individual Members for a cost estimate of
    legislation that they plan to introduce. We price bills that
    are reported from committee, but we also do a lot of advisory
    scoring of bills that are introduced, many of which, as you
    know, have been reported from the committee. So to the extent
    that we have slack or have moved resources, it is in that area
    and not in what the committees need us to do.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
    being here.

                             conclusion of hearings

        Senator Bennett. Thank you. The subcommittee is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., Wednesday, March 24, the
    hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
    reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Abrecht, Gary L., Chief, U.S. Capitol Police.....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Anderson, Barry B., Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office.   293
        Biographical sketch..........................................   293
    Archer, Hon. Bill, U.S. Representative from Texas, prepared
      statement......................................................    89

    Becker, Herbert S., Director, Information Technology Services,
      Library of Congress............................................   117
    Benitez, Ben, Acting Director, Office of the Associate Librarian
      for Human Resources Services, Library of Congress..............   117
    Billington, Hon. James H., Librarian of Congress, Library of
      Congress.......................................................   117
        Prepared statement...........................................   121
    Buckley, Francis J., Jr., Superintendent of Documents, Government
      Printing Office................................................   189

    Ciccolella, Charles, Chief of Operations, Office of the Sergeant
      at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................   271
    Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho, prepared statement   217
    Crippen, Dan L., Director, Congressional Budget Office...........   293
        Biographical sketch..........................................   293
        Prepared statement...........................................   295
    Cylke, Frank Kurt, Director, National Library Service for the
      Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress..........   117

    Dey, Christopher C., Chief Financial Officer, Office of the
      Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate...................   271
    DiMario, Michael F., Public Printer, Government Printing Office..   189
        Prepared statement...........................................   190

    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:
        Prepared statement...........................................   118
        Questions submitted by.......................................    18
    Frederick, Doyle G., Chief of Staff, Office of the Sergeant at
      Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate...............................   271

    Green, Gary, General Counsel, Office of Compliance...............   105
    Guy, William, Budget Director, Government Printing Office........   189

    Hantman, Hon. Alan M., AIA, Architect of the Capitol, member,
      Capitol Police Board........................................... 1, 21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Hodges, Polly E., Budget and Finance Officer, Congressional
      Budget Office..................................................   293
    Hughes-Brown, Beth, Administrative and Budget Officer, Office of
      Compliance.....................................................   105

    Livingood, Hon. Wilson, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of
      Representatives, member, Capitol Police Board..................     1
    Lopez, Kenneth E., Director of Security, Library of Congress.....   117

    Mack, Hon. Connie, Chairman, Joint Economic Committee............   103
        Prepared statement...........................................   104
    Mansker, Robert T., Deputy Public Printer, Government Printing
      Office.........................................................   189
    Medina, Rubens, Law Librarian, Library of Congress...............   117
    Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
      Library of Congress............................................   117
        Prepared statement...........................................   136

    Orton, William, former Representative in Congress from Utah and
      member, American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Law
      Library of Congress............................................   209

    Paull, Lindy L., Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation.....    87
    Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress....   117
        Prepared statement...........................................   130
    Poole, Amita, Supervising Engineer, Capitol Building, Architect
      of the Capitol.................................................    21
    Pregnall, Stuart, Budget Officer, Architect of the Capitol.......    21

    Roth, Hon. Bill, Vice Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation......    87
        Prepared statement...........................................    89

    Scott, Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of
      Congress.......................................................   117
    Silberman, Ricky, Executive Director, Office of Compliance.......   105
        Prepared statement...........................................   107
    Sisco, Gary, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the Secretary of
      the Senate, U.S. Senate........................................   217
        Prepared statement...........................................   223
    Symms, Loretta, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Sergeant
      at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate............................   271

    Tabb, Winston, Associate Librarian for Library Services, Library
      of Con-
      gress..........................................................   117
    Talkin, Pam, Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, Office of
      Compli-
      ance...........................................................   105
    Theiss, Lynne, Executive Officer, Architect of the Capitol.......    21
    Turnbull, Michael G., Assistant Architect of the Capitol.........    21

    Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States,
      General Accounting Office......................................   165
        Biographical sketch..........................................   166
        Prepared statement...........................................   174
    Washington, Linda, Director, Integrated Support Services, Library
      of Congress....................................................   117
    Webster, John D., Director, Financial Services, Library of
      Congress.......................................................   117
    Williams, Kathy A., Budget Officer, Library of Congress..........   117
    Wineman, Timothy S., Financial Clerk of the Senate, Office of the
      Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Senate...........................   217
        Prepared statement...........................................   265

    Zagorin, Janet S., chair, American Bar Association Standing
      Committee on the Law Library of Congress.......................   209
        Prepared statement...........................................   211
    Ziglar, Hon. James W., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Office of
      the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate, and Chairman,
      Capitol Police Board...........................................1, 271
        Biographical sketch..........................................   271
        Prepared statements..........................................6, 284

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                                                                       Page
    Additional committee questions...................................    79
    Annual and multi-year projects...................................    81
    AOC financial and budget status reports..........................    80
    Botanic Garden reconstruction....................................    22
    Capital:
        Budget.......................................................    71
        Project implementation.......................................    72
    Capitol dome renovation..........................................    62
        Cost.........................................................    63
    Dirksen Senate Office Building renovation........................    64
    Financial management system......................................69, 82
    Financial statements.............................................    82
    Fire safety......................................................    79
    Five year capital budget, fiscal year 2000.......................    32
    Fort Meade project...............................................    80
    General introduction and executive summary.......................    23
    House and Senate office buildings, reengineering in the..........    80
    Human factor.....................................................    38
    K-9 facility renovation..........................................    80
    Life safety......................................................    67
    Office of the Architect of the Capitol, role of the..............    28
    Operating budget.................................................    70
        Fiscal year 2000.............................................    29
    Operations improvement...........................................    66
    Parking:
        Garages......................................................    79
        Maryland Avenue, removal of on...............................    61
    Perimeter security...............................................    68
    Physical security master plan....................................    68
    Re-engineering plan..............................................    67
    Russell courtyard boxwoods.......................................    81
    Senate employees child care center...............................    74
        Priority.....................................................    76
    Senate restaurants...............................................73, 81
    Strategic business planning effort: goals and processes for
      sensible agency re-engineering.................................    37
    Visitor:
        Entrances....................................................    78
        Center.......................................................    65
            Security.................................................    77
            Site plan................................................    76
    Y2K:
        Computer compliance..........................................    69
        Program......................................................    81

                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

    Appropriation tracking system update.............................   297
    Budget, request, areas of concern relating to CBO's..............   296
    Director's Report on Work Activities of the Congressional Budget
      Office--January 1999...........................................   298
    Managing CBO information.........................................   297
    Personnel issues: Recruiting and retention.......................   295
    Request, fiscal year 2000......................................294, 296
    Y2K status report..............................................295, 297

                           GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    Additional committee questions...................................   186
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000.................................   183
    GAO:
        Benefits of work.............................................   172
        Committed to accountability, integrity, reliability..........   174
        Goals for....................................................   174
        Highlights of activities.....................................   166
        Opportunities to enhance services to the Congress............   177
        Today: Service to the Congress and American people...........   175
    Offsetting collections...........................................   186
    Self-initiated work..............................................   168
    Travel request...................................................   185

                           GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    Additional committee questions...................................   204
    Congressional printing and binding appropriation.................   192
    Delinquent payments..............................................   203
    Employment levels................................................   200
    Fiscal year 2000 appropriations request..........................   191
    GPO's mission: Keeping America informed..........................   190
    Integrated processing system.....................................   203
    Legislative changes, miscellaneous...............................   195
    Management audit recommendations, status report on...............   195
    Public Printer's statement.......................................   189
    Retirement incentive authority...................................   195
    Revolving fund...................................................   194
    Salaries and expenses appropriation..............................   193
    Y2K:
        Compliance costs.............................................   197
        Compliant systems............................................   196
        Status of preparedness.......................................   195

                          JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

    Appropriation request:
        Details of fiscal year 2000..................................    90
        Summary of fiscal year 2000..................................    89
    Federal tax system, report on the state of the...................    88
    Joint Committee on Taxation:
        Anticipated workload of the, for calendar year 1999..........    92
        Review of operations during calendar year 1998...............    91
    Tax Code, simplification of the..................................   101

                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

    Joint Economic Committee budget request..........................   103

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

    Audio-visual Conservation Center.................................   127
    Automation building blocks.......................................   123
    Budget request.................................................118, 121
    Career enhancement succession plan...............................   159
    Copyright fees increase..........................................   161
    Copyright Office.................................................   126
    CRS:
        Budget request...............................................   136
        Concerns of putting products online..........................   162
        Distribution of written products to the public...............   140
        Home page....................................................   135
        Public dissemination of products.............................   135
        Recruitment program..........................................   156
        Request for funding..........................................   134
        Security issues..............................................   135
        Succession plan..............................................   134
        Y2K compliant................................................   135
    Early history....................................................   122
    ILS project......................................................   158
    Information and research capability, developing and maintaining
      an.............................................................   138
    James Madison Building workstation modernization project.........   127
    Law Library......................................................   126
    Legislation, proposed............................................   127
    Library buildings and grounds....................................   127
    Library of Congress today........................................   123
    Library staff, collections and facilities, security of...........   125
    Library's bicentennial.........................................120, 128
    Library's challenges.............................................   120
    Library's mission................................................   119
    National Film Preservation Foundation............................   127
    National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped   126
    Office of Inspector General......................................   128
    Personnel system.................................................   160
        Reprogramming fiscal 1999 funding to evaluate................   155
    Retirements, impact of the potential.............................   158
    Services, maintaining current....................................   136
    Special congressional directives: Legislative information system
      (LIS)..........................................................   139
    Succession planning..............................................   156
    Succession program...............................................   125

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

    Additional record keeping........................................   115
    Associates, introduction of......................................   105
    Authority, potential additional..................................   113
    Enforcement authority for retaliation............................   114
    Workload and OSHA experience.....................................   112

                           U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

    Additional committee questions...................................    18
    Associates, introduction of......................................     4
    Booz-Allen and Hamilton report...................................    16
    Budget request...................................................     3
    Management review................................................    13
    Payroll increases................................................    14
    Police forces, compatibility with other..........................    11
    Security upgrade project.........................................    15
    Summary statement................................................     4
    Y2K..............................................................     6
        Program......................................................    12

                                  U.S. SENATE

                     Office of the Secretary of the Senate

    Accounting Department............................................   245
    Accounts payable audit section...................................   246
    Additional committee question....................................   268
    Administrative offices...........................................   239
    Bill Clerk.......................................................   229
    Budget Department................................................   247
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000...............................219, 223
    Capitol visitor center.........................................222, 266
        Vision for the...............................................   227
    Central Human Resources Department...............................   239
    Daily Digest.....................................................   229
    Departmental annual reports......................................   229
    Disbursing Office................................................   239
        Financial management.........................................   242
    Employee benefits section........................................   241
    Enrolling Clerk..................................................   230
    Executive Clerk..................................................   230
    Financial Systems Department.....................................   248
    FMIS.............................................................   219
        And LIS, implementing the mandated systems of................   223
        Processing of vouchers.......................................   266
    Front counter--Administrative and financial services.............   239
    Historical Office................................................   256
    Impeachment trial................................................   228
    Information systems..............................................   260
    Interparliamentary services......................................   255
        Official foreign visitors--1998..............................   265
        Trips 1998...................................................   264
    Journal Clerk....................................................   231
    Legislative Clerk................................................   231
    Legislative departments..........................................   229
    LIS..............................................................   220
    Office of Captioning Services....................................   236
    Office of Conservation and Preservation..........................   253
    Office of Human Resources........................................   248
    Office of Official Reporters of Debates..........................   232
    Office of Public Records.........................................   256
    Office of Senate Curator.........................................   258
    Office of Senate Security........................................   253
    Office of the Secretary budget...................................   268
    Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment................   250
    Other systems....................................................   221
    Parliamentarian..................................................   233
    Payroll section..................................................   240
    Personnel challenges for the future..............................   226
    Policy and Control Department....................................   248
    Printing and document services...................................   233
    Senate:
        Gift Shop....................................................   255
        Library......................................................   249
        Page school..................................................   259
        Stationery room..............................................   254
    Special projects--LIS............................................   237
    Y2K compliance...................................................   219

                 Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    Barbershop.......................................................   292
    Budget request, fiscal year 2000.................................   285
    Summary statement................................................   272
    Y2K:
        Issues.......................................................   291
        Update.......................................................   288

                                       -